2013 (12) TMI 984

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the assessee appeal and has rejected the Revenue appeal. 1 As per the facts of the case appellant are engaged in manufacture of writing and printing paper and soda ash falling under Chapter 48 and 28 respectively. The writing and printing paper was being cleared by them to the director, Govt. Printing & Stationary, Mumbai at the rate of Rs. 31.65 Kg at destination point. 2 The dispute in the present appeal relates to as to whether the freight charges incurred by the appellant for supply of the goods to their customers are required to be added in assessable value of the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d freight has been written in hand. It is not the case of revenue that the word freight has been entered subsequent to clearance. I have perused and examined the invoices nos. 707 & 708 all dtd. 20.06.2002 which are covered by supply order no. Desh-II-B/P/PR/RC-1/01-02/Shreyans/32/1261 dtd. 31.12.2001. As per this order the paper has to be supplied to the Director, Govt. Printing & Stationary, Mumbai at the rate of Rs. 31.65 Kg. at destination Mumbai. Implying that the goods are to be delivered FOR Mumbai and the settled rate is Rs. 31.65 per kg. which included the freight charges while effecting clearances in respect of this order through invoice no. 707 & 708 the appellants have mentioned freight also and the total price inclusive of frei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessable value and differential duty of Rs. 4,42,152/- due for recovery. The Appellant has counted that this amount was recovered as freight from the DGS & D and by merely not showing the same separately was no reason to include the same in the assessable value nor was the same legally includible as the cited Rule 5 was not applicable. It is true that Rule 5 does not apply to the instant situation. Further the Bombay High Court in Poona Beverages Private Ltd., Vs. A.K. Bandopathyay 1980 ELT 193 196 (Bom.) held that freight charges need not be separately shown in the invoices or in the bills. The Tribunal in Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. CE 2001(132) ELT 484 (Kol.) held that it was immaterial that the customers bore the freight cost in some....