2007 (5) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Period Date of SCN Duty (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) OIO/OIA No. and date 1. E/1694/03 Mar. 1997 to Sep. 2001 28-3-02 21,72,451-00 21,72,451-00 9/CMM/09/2003 dated 26-3-03 2. E/1719/03 Mar. 1997 to Sep. 2001 28-3-02 NIL 5,00,000-00 9/CMM/09/2003 dated 26-3-03 3. E/2740/05 Oct. 2001 to Sep. 2002 and Oct. 2002 to June 2003 5-8-03 18-9-03 8,08,143-00 3,89,060-00 8,08,143-00 3,89,060-00 BR/119 TO 120/Th-1/2005 dated 17-6-05 4. E/2938/05 Oct. 2001 to Sep. 2002 and Oct. 2002 to June 2003 5-8-03 18-9-03 NIL 2,50,000-00 BR/119 TO 120/Th-1/2005 dated 17-6-05 5. E/3714/05 July 03 to Feb. 04 9-6-04 4,69,918-00 4,69,918-00 BR/184 & I85/Th-1/2005 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....buyers paid M/s. N.S. Shetty for loading and transportation. The revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the loading and leveling charges paid by the independent buyer of gypsum to M/s N.S. Shetty and also the amount incurred in shifting the gypsum within their factory are required to be included in the assessable value of the gypsum. The lower authority relying on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indian Oxygen Ltd., 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) held that the loading and leveling charges incurred prior to clearance of goods from the place of removal is includible in the assessable value of the gypsum. Consequently the demands were confirmed and equal penalties under Sec. 11AC have been impose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue, whatever amount is received by M/s. N.S. Shetty would be considered as received by the appellant. There is no substance in revenue's contention that Shri N.S. Shetty is the appellant's man. As far as the appellant and M/s. N.S. Shetty are concerned they have an agreement under which M/s. N.S. Shetty has to carryout the task of transporting the gypsum from one place in the factory to another place and also do the leveling. No doubt the appellant incurs expenses for the above purpose. Definitely, the appellant would take in to account the expenses incurred while selling the gypsum to the cement manufacturer. As far as the removal of gypsum from the appellant's factory to the cement manufacturer's factory there is a contract between M/....