2014 (3) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Shri Pathak, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue. 2. As per the facts on record, appellants are engaged in the manufacture of glass sheets classifiable under Heading 70.01 and 70.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They entered into a contract with various government departments under the Directorate General of Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D) at a contract rate for delivery of the goods at factory gate. It is seen that in addition to the contracted value, the appellants were also charging sound delivery charges from their clients which varied from 30% to 40% of the total value of the goods. According to the appellants, the sound delivery charges consisted of freight, insurance/transit risk and open delivery expens....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arda Factory Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). The appellate authority took note of the above decisions but by relying upon the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Roshini Ltd. reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and in the case of Vikram Detergent Ltd. reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) held that Central Excise duty is not chargeable on the amount of freight and insurance charges but the same is chargeable on the amount of transit breaking loss/damage charges collected by the appellants during September, 1996 to June, 2001. He also rejected the appellants' plea on the issue of time bars, hence the present appeal. 5. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants fairly agrees that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terms of the agreement. If that be so, goods were available at factory gate and their customers were free to pick up the goods from factory and undertake the transportation of the same. We have also examined the invoices issued in some of the cases, where no sound delivery charges stand raised and received by the appellants. As such the contract price being available at the factory gate and the sound delivery charges being optional in nature, we find no reasons to add the same in the assessable value of the goods. 7. At this stage, we may refer to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Triveni Glass Ltd. reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 268 (Tri.-Del.) wherein after taking note of the facts, it was observed that as the assessee has und....