Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>CESTAT rules on transportation charges inclusion in assessable value, excludes factory to customer freight.</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the inclusion of excess amounts collected for ... Valuation Issues involved: Appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding inclusion of excess amounts collected for transportation charges in the assessable value.Summary:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard an appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the inclusion of excess amounts collected for transportation charges in the assessable value. The respondent, a manufacturer of Oxygen Gas and Dissolved Acetylene Gas, collected additional sums from buyers for transportation charges. The original authority held that these amounts were includible in the assessable value as the exact freight was not indicated in the invoices. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on a Supreme Court decision. The Department argued that the actual freight was not indicated and loading charges should be included in the assessable value.The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the freight from factory to customers' premises is excludible from the assessable value. They also acknowledged that equalized freight should be excluded. Referring to the Board's instructions, the Tribunal stated that if only the cost of transportation is indicated without a breakup, it should be accepted as the cost of transportation. In this case, where gases were transported in specially designed vehicles, the details provided by the assessee should be accepted unless there is contrary evidence. As there were no contrary findings regarding loading charges, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal by the Department was rejected.