Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether freight charges incurred for delivery of goods to the buyer's destination were includible in the assessable value, and whether the deduction could be denied because the charges were described as handling charges in the ledger or were not separately reflected in every invoice.
Analysis: The goods were supplied on a destination basis and the freight was actually incurred for transportation from the factory to the consignee. The record showed that freight was separately indicated in the invoices, and the manner of bookkeeping in the ledger did not alter the character of the expense. Mere non-mention or imperfect mention of freight in invoices, by itself, was held insufficient to justify inclusion in assessable value when the nature of the charge and its incurrence were not in dispute. The valuation rule relied upon by the Revenue was found inapplicable to deny the deduction in the facts of the case.
Conclusion: Freight charges were not includible in the assessable value, and the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the exclusion of freight from assessable value failed, and the order allowing deduction of freight charges was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where freight is actually incurred for delivery to the buyer's destination and its character as transportation cost is established, it cannot be included in assessable value merely because of ledger classification or imperfect invoice description.