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 allows appeal by remand, setting aside Commissioner's orders for fresh review.</h1> <h3>Mirzapur Electricals industries Ltd. Versus CCE, Allahabad</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority. The matter was ... Assessable value of Transformers - Eligibility of deduction of equalized freight - Transformers as high volume and heavy products and definitely involve considerable freight in transporting to the various destination - find that freight has been agreed to between the appellant and buyers on the basis of contract - find that the appellants have not the made the submissions before the original authority regarding excess payment to transporters when compared to what has been collected by them - The Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that in three cases the amounts collected was more than the amount of freight and insurance has only taken freight paid to the transporters without considering the amount incurred towards insurance - Held that the factual basis on which the orders have been passed by the authorities below are not clear - It deem appropriate to accept the suggestion of the learned JCDR to remand the matter to the original authority. Issues:Eligibility of deduction of equalized freight to arrive at the assessable value.Analysis:The appeal was taken up for fresh consideration following the Supreme Court's order. The appellants supplied transformers to different entities, and the issue revolved around the deduction of freight in the assessable value. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the deduction, demanding differential duty and imposing a penalty. The appellants argued that the freight and insurance charges were agreed upon in the contract and were collected as per the terms, even though the actual transportation cost was higher. They cited previous decisions to support their case.The JCDR pointed out that the authorities had only considered the supply to one entity and not the other. They argued that the appellants should provide evidence of the actual freight and insurance costs. The JCDR suggested remanding the matter for a proper review of the facts. The Tribunal noted that the authorities had not clearly evaluated the deductions claimed for freight and insurance. They found discrepancies in the analysis and decided to remand the case to the original authority for a fresh consideration, granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority. The matter was remanded for a fresh review, considering all observations made by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
