2013 (12) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JJ. For the Appellant: Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mathur, AR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): After having heard both sides duly represented by Shri L P Ashtana, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Mathur learned DR for revenue in respect of both the appeals, we find that M/s. Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration with M/s. INDAL Kolkata, they were given an advance of Rs.3,75,45,200/-. In addition amount of Rs.1,06,000/- approx. were given to the M/.s INDAL for special test charges for conducting the above test on the goods before delivery of the same. 4. Revenues contention is that such advance received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation of India are required to be added in the assessa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e amount received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation in the hands of present appellant, who is only the job worker, cannot be said to be in accordance with the law. Firstly, the said amount was never received by the appellant and secondly the Revenue has not shown that on account of receipt of said advance by M/s. INDAL the assessable value in the hands of present appellant gets depress....