2018 (10) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein it has been alleged against the appellant that they have undervalued the goods. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacture of Transformers and located in the state of Jammu & Kashmir and availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. After manufacturing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is recovering these testing charges from the buyers and they are doing the said activity on behalf of the buyers. Therefore, these testing charges are not includible in the assessable value. He further submits that as in terms of the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, if whatever duty is payable by the assessee, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uded in the assessable value, although, these testing charges has been re-imbursed by the buyers. Buyers has not only re-imbursed the testing charges but he is also paid the value of transformers to the appellant, so, if anything received from the buyer is re-imbursement then nothing is to be paid by the appellant for the value of goods. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel testing....