1997 (7) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-4-1986. The Assistant Commissioner did not allow any deduction on account of the average freight as claimed by the appellants on the plea that the same were not uniform in all cases and that the appellants received the transport subsidy from the Government. 1.2 Against the aforesaid disallowance of average freight by the Assistant Commissioner, the appellants went in appeal before the lower appellate authority. On this issue, the said authority has observed as follows :- ".... Instead of disallowing the deduction straightway, Assistant Collector should have allowed the deduction of average freight in respect of F.O.R. destination prices calculated on the basis of actual transport cost incurred during the respective years. And si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....annot be any dispute on that. The only thing is that the appellants received the subsidy from the Central Government at intervals of several years. It is further submitted that the subsidy is an incentive given to the manufacturers located in North-East Region of the country. There is no provision, he submits, in Section 4(2) that the cost of transportation will be reduced to the extent of subsidy, if any, received by a manufacturer. If the Department's contention is accepted, submits the learned Consultant, the incentive provided by the Central Government shall stand reduced and there is no warrant for reduction of that subsidy under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR, Shri T. Prem ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessable value. In arriving at this decision, learned SDR submits, the Tribunal had relied on three Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court which are as follows :- (i) Government of India v. MRF reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.); (ii) Serai Kella Glass Works v. Collector reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 376 (S.C.); (iii) Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. Deduction of cost of transportation is directly governed by the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act. It is not anybody's case that cost of transportation claimed by the appellants has not been actually incurred in the present cas....