1990 (10) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd sold through their depots. 2. Smt. Baliga the ld. SDR submitted that the impugned order is wrong in having allowed the appeal inasmuch as there was no basis for the downward revision of the value arrived by the Asstt. Collr. 3. Shri Mukhopadhyay, the ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that out of the three kinds of Block Boards manufactured by the appellants (15 mm, 18 mm & 25 mm), there were factory-gate prices in respect of 18 mm & 25 mm which were approved by the Asstt. Collr. He submitted that in respect of 15 mm Block Board, the sales are through the depots and the price was approved by the Asstt. Collr. without any abatement. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the value of 18 mm Block Board was fixed at Rs. 32.77....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said Act. But the said firm failed to submit any supporting documents whatsoever like Railway Receipts etc. The assessee vide their letter dated 9-9-1980 and also at the time of personal hearing stated that the realisation of expenses at different rates for sales at different places had been due to the levy of octroi, insurance, different rates of freight/handling, special packing and bank interest payable for different durations of the storage for such sales. But they did not produce even a single document to identify the expenses as actual cost of transportation. The Asstt. Collr., Central Excise, Dibrugargh was, therefore, not satisfied that the amount realised from the buyers in the name of such expenses towards the transportation o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said Act. But the said firm failed to produce any documentary evidence whatsoever to prove the actual expenses incurred towards the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery of such goods. The declared expenses for transportation realised from the buyers did not account for only the cost of transportation of goods but also included some other expenses which were not admissible for deduction for the purpose of determination of assessable value under Sec. 4 of the said Act." 5. The impugned order does not disclose that the Appellate Collr, examined the eligible deductions before arriving at the value. At the same time, we note the plea advanced by Shri Mukhopadhyay, a plea not disputed before us, that no ded....