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 dismisses appeal on transportation costs inclusion in assessable value without evidence of disintegration</h1> <h3>KG. Naidu Mills Versus Commissioner of C. EX., Coimbatore</h3> KG. Naidu Mills Versus Commissioner of C. EX., Coimbatore - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 680 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Inclusion of transportation cost of input sent to job worker's premises in assessable value.2. Inclusion of handling charges incurred by job worker for unloading goods in assessable value.Analysis:1. The first issue in this appeal concerns whether the transportation cost of input sent to the job worker's premises should be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the job worker. The appellant failed to provide evidence showing a clear disintegration between the transportation cost and the contract between the manufacturer and the job worker. Without such disintegration, the appellant cannot succeed on this issue.2. The second issue pertains to whether the handling charges incurred by the job worker for unloading the goods should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal held that handling charges are integrally connected with the input reaching the job worker's premises and cannot be disintegrated. The Tribunal emphasized that every activity involves a cost, whether undertaken by external workers or the job worker's own workers.3. The appellant relied on a previous decision related to the transportation of empty bottles, which was deemed inapplicable to the current case involving the assessable value of transportation charges in the hands of the job worker. The Tribunal highlighted the settled legal position based on another case cited by the Revenue.4. The Respondent's representative pointed out the non-inclusion of the cost of waste arising during the manufacturing process, which was not raised by the appellant in the written submissions or appeal. The Tribunal clarified that it cannot create jurisdiction to decide issues not brought before it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both the transportation cost and handling charges issues.
TaxTMI 