TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e department. Appeal No. E/680/2002 has been filed by the appellants against the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The period involved in this appeal is 7/86 to 3/91. Appeal No. E/681/2002 is filed by the appellants against the same impugned order against allowing the department's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The period involved in this appeal is 8/92 to 3/94. Since the issue involved in both these appeals are one and the same, they were heard together and are therefore disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of elastic rail clips, modified loose jaws, rail anchor, fish plates, suspension shackle, point roding and screw couplin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her original authority viz. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III vide his order-in-original No. 10/JC/Cal-III/2001, dated 20-8-01 has held that inspection charges are includible in the assessable value. Appellants filed appeal against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner holding that the inspection charges are includible in the assessable value, while the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner whereby the Assistant Commissioner has held that inspection charges are not includible in the assessable value. Both these appeals were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal filed by the department and rejected the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir own case vide order S. Nos. 1166-1167 and Nos. A/1195-1196, dated 22-10-2002 wherein on identical issue their appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. He has prayed for a similar order in these appeals also. 4. Shri A.K. Mondal, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue defended the impugned order and submitted the inspection charges are required to be incldued in the assessable value in view of the majority view held in the case of Southern Structurals Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-II reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 678 (T) = 2002 (52) RLT 334. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The only issue that arises for consideration in these appeal is whether the inspection charges i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Collector. The Tribunal had held that expenses incurred on account of additional tests conducted at Customers requisitions are not includible in the assessable value, (iv) in the case of General Engineering Works v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 569 it was held by the Tribunal that inspection charges paid to RITES by the Railways are not includible in the assessable value. In that case the inspection was done in addition to the regular inspection done by the assessees therein, (v) the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, against CEGAT order No. 796/91-A, dated 2-12-1991 reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal in the said order....