TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention to the show-cause notice and the orders passed by the lower authorities. He would submit that it is not in dispute that the appellant had on instructions and instance of the buyer undertook a third party inspection for which charges were to be paid by the buyer. He submitted that the said charges are paid by the appellant and later-on reimbursed by the buyer. He would submit that their product is marketable as soon as the manufacturing and internal testing is done in their own laboratory, but an additional requirement of inspection by third party is insisted by the buyer. He would submit that the issue is now settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhaskar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (167) ELT 189 (T-LB). He would also submit that the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Union of India v. Siddharth Tubes Ltd. - 2006 (194) ELT 144(MP) followed the law settled by the Honble Apex Court on this point reported at page A-51 in 1992 (62.) ELT. He would submit that post July 2007 when the provisions of Section 4 were amended the discharge of duty liability on the transaction value, this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2014 (304) ELT 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rketable till such inspection is carried out. In our considered view the lower authorities have misconstrued the entire issue while upholding the demand, interest thereof and penalty for more than one reason. 6.1 Firstly, we notice from the purchase orders placed that the said orders are given by the Government authorities to the appellant and one of the order of the Thermal Power Station specifically talks about the material should be despatched after inspection by the representative of Thermal Power Station while the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. purchase order talks about the inspection of the goods by third party inspectors as per the instructions of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. We see from the orders that the said orders are specific inasmuch as their cables have to meet standards of ISI which according to the appellant is done so by their in-house laboratory and undisputed by the Revenue. 6.3 Secondly, we find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Siddharth Tubes Ltd. (supra) were considering similar issue. Respectfully we reproduce the ratio:- "4. So far as the issue in relation to insp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 369 (Trib.) cited by the learned DR is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd., the assessee was charging amounts towards "fixed cylinder rental" and "Cylinder maintenance charges" even from the customers who lifted Oxygen gas manufactured by the assessee in their own cylinders and the amounts charged as cylinder rental and cylinder maintenance were several times higher than the actual costs incurred and on this basis the Revenue had alleged that part of the value of the Oxygen Gas was being collected as cylinder rental and maintenance charges and this allegation of the Revenue had been upheld by the Tribunal. In this case, there is no such allegation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the cylinder testing charges are not includible in the assessable value of the liquid chlorine and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeal is therefore dismissed. 6.4 This Tribunal in the case of Lubi Submersibles Ltd. (supra) (wherein one of us M.V. Ravindran was a Member) on the very same issue held as under:- 4. Heard both sides and perused the case r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... P. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) M/s. Southern Structurals Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-II - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 678 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) CCE, Jaipur-II v. M/s. A. Infrastructure Ltd. - 2003 (16) E.L.T. 549 (Tri.-Del.) As regards reliance on C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 3/88-CX, dated 16-2-88 by the adjudicating authority, I find that the circular dated 16-2-88 issued under erstwhile Section 4 of the Act in respect of Pre-delivery Inspection charges has not stood the test of legal scrutiny as Tribunal's judgment has been otherwise and consequently C.B.E. & C. withdrew its subsequent Circular No. 355/77/97-CX, dated 19-11-97 and 435/I/99-CX, dated 12-1-99 vide Circular No. 681/72/2002-CX, dated 12-12-02 in the context of old Section 4 of CEA, 1944. The C.B.E. & C. has issued a Circular dated 12-5-00 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 45] in which in Para 2.2 it has been clarified that the concept of new transaction value under Section 4 has same scope as that of old Section 4 of the Act and Valuation Rules. Hence, respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that the third party's inspection charges initially paid by the appellants and subsequently re....