2008 (6) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri R. Muralidhar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This is a Revenue appeal against OIA No. 80/06-C.E. dated 29-12-2006. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has arrived at the finding that the elements viz (i) cost of transportation (ii) laying (iii) jointing (iv) testing and (v) commissioning by any stretch of reasoning cannot be considered to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07 (214) E.L.T. 35 (Tribunal)], a copy of which is filed before us. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the Tribunal ruling cited supra. The findings recorded in para 6 are reproduced herein below. "6. The appellants have been manufacturing and clearing M.S. Pipes to M/s. HM....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al products as required under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. When the appellants have received escalation charges they have deducted the value attributable to the elements viz., cost of transportation, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning on the basis of the certificate issued by Cost Accountant and paid the 8% amount on the remaining value of the escalation received. In the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... factory gate. Consequently, the department's insistence that the appellants should pay the subject 8% amount on the price attributable to the elements viz., (i) (1) cost of transportation (ii) laying, (iii) jointing (iv) testing and (v) commissioning is not as per law. I rely on the Hon 'ble CESTAT's decision in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 752 (T) in this regar....