TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Remands Case for Appellant to Prove Loading Work by Salaried Staff</h1> The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for the appellant to prove that loading work was done by regular salaried staff, not hired ... Valuation - Loading charges - Demand - Limitation Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the inclusion of loading charges in the assessable value for duty calculation and the bar of limitation for a show cause notice dated 19-1-90.Inclusion of Loading Charges in Assessable Value:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PCC Poles, entered into contracts for supply to U.P. State Electricity Board, where loading charges were to be paid by the buyer if loading was done by the appellant. The Additional Collector held that loading charges should be included in the assessable value regardless of actual payment. The appellant contended that as there were no written instructions from the buyer, loading charges were not incurred. The appellant argued that the cost of loading was already included in the assessable value due to regular staff being used without extra remuneration. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter for the appellant to prove this contention with documentary evidence.Bar of Limitation for Show Cause Notice:The show cause notice dated 19-1-90 alleged suppression of facts with intent to evade duty for the period 1984 to October 1988. The appellant argued that the notice was barred by time, but the Tribunal found that the contractual terms, including the price variation clause, were known to the department and not concealed by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the provisionality of the price lists, due to the price variation clause, meant that the period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act did not apply. Therefore, there was no bar of limitation for the show cause notice.Decision:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for the appellant to prove that loading work was done by regular salaried staff, not hired laborers. The appellant was granted an opportunity to produce evidence and a personal hearing. The appeal was allowed, and the cross-objection was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
