TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical fibre cable/accessories/poly insulated jelly filled cables. On scrutiny of records for the period July,2000 to October,2003, the revenue found that the assessee had cleared their products to BSNL on the basis of composite prices for sale of goods on FOR basis. For arriving at the assessable value, the respondent assessee deducted transportation charges on percentage basis. It appeared to revenue that as per rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, deduction of transportation charges on equalized basis is not admissible. 2.1 Accordingly, show cause notice dated in 11/3/05 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for the period July, 2000 to October, 2003, demanding duty of Rs. 8,96,423 proposed to be recovered und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court in Escort's JCB Ltd. Vs. CCE : 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC), on the question of inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value, the Honourable Apex Court in its judgement have held that the Commissioner of Central Excise and this Tribunal erred in drawing an inference that ownership in the property continue to be retained by the assessee for the reason that the assessee had arranged for the transport and transit insurance. Such a conclusion is not sustainable. 2.3 The SCN was adjudicated and the proposed demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under section 11 AC of the Act and further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Rule 25 of CER. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Division II, Naini, Allahabad and both letters have been duly acknowledged in the respective offices. In the both the letters, they have informed that they have received purchase orders No.C-01/PIJF/HCL/(380)21 dated 14.05.2001 and No.C-01/PIJF/HCL/45.0/21 dated 15.10.2001 from BSNL and copy of the said purchase orders were also enclosed along with these letters. On perusal of these documents, it is established that the facts were well within the knowledge of the department. Even otherwise, it has been held in catena of decision that there is no suppression of facts, if facts, which are not required to be disclosed , are not disclosed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and insurance charges in the assessable value. Further, reliance was placed on the rulings in the cases of I.A.E.C.Brokers Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise : 1990 (48) ELT 388 (Tribunal) and Shree Krishna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad : 1998 (36) ELT 190 (Tribunal), wherein it has been held that the non-disclosure of existence of contract by an assessee or whether different value of clearances are adopted, amounts to suppression of facts. 5. The ld.Advocate for the respondent assessee have filed the paper book enclosing the two letters dated in 11.09.2001 and 30/11/2001 along with annexure for copies of purchase contracts. He takes me through the contents of the contract wherein clause 4.1, it is clearly mentioned ....