TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 excludes certain charges, imposes penalty, and grants relief in favor of appellant</h1> <h3>RAGHAVENDRA PRE-STRESS PRODUCTS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., TIRUPATI</h3> RAGHAVENDRA PRE-STRESS PRODUCTS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., TIRUPATI - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 743 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues involved:- Freight and Insurance Charges- Loading and Unloading Charges- Inspection ChargesFreight and Insurance Charges:The appellant argued that freight and insurance charges should not be included in the assessable value, citing multiple rulings in their favor. They contended that the Commissioner was unjustified in rejecting the citations provided. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, agreed with the appellant, stating that the charges cannot be added to the assessable value based on the cited judgments. The Tribunal set aside the demands related to freight and insurance charges.Loading and Unloading Charges:Regarding unloading charges, the appellant argued that these charges collected for unloading goods at the customer's premises should not be included in the assessable value. They relied on specific rulings to support their argument. The Tribunal noted that the price had already been assessed and approved under Section 4(1)(a) of the CE Act. They agreed with the appellant that unloading charges at the customer's premises should not be added to the assessable value. However, the loading charges were not contested, and the Tribunal confirmed the demand related to loading charges.Inspection Charges:The appellant contended that inspection charges should not be added to the assessable value as they follow strict quality control at every stage of manufacture. They cited judgments supporting their argument. The Tribunal referenced previous rulings and held that inspection charges, being optional and conducted at the customer's instance, should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal set aside the demands related to inspection charges.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demands on freight and insurance charges and inspection charges, agreeing with the appellant's arguments supported by legal precedents. They confirmed the demand on loading charges and imposed a penalty for not adding the loading charges. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 