2012 (11) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rately. The period of dispute is from 2001-02 to 2003-04. The Department's allegation is that during this period in some cases the freight charged on equalized basis from the buyers is more than the freight expenses actually incurred and excess amount recovered as freight, do not form part of the transaction value. It is on this basis that the duty demand of Rs. 94,843/- has been upheld against the appellant with interest and equal amount of penalty has been imposed. The order of adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed with the stay application. 2. Though this matter is listed for hearing of the stay application, after....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 4, in force w.e.f. 1-7-2000 and this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri S.R. Meena, learned Senior Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that during the period of dispute, the assessable value was transaction value as defined in Section 4 of the Act and hence, the differential freight amount would be includible in the assessable value. He, therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We appreciate the contention of the respective parties. During the period of dispute, under Section 4(i), when the duty of excise on a....