TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period 18-11-96 to 30-6-2000. The reason adduced for the alleged short levy was that the appellant was making delivery of the goods at the buyers' premises and for that reason, sale took place only at the consignee's premises and all costs up to the point of sale were required to be included in the assessable value. It was, therefore, held that freight, insurance and other costs should also form part of the assessable value. 3. Under the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner upheld the recovery proposed in the show cause notice with the following finding : "25. It was alleged in the show cause notice that M/s. TGL were clearing the goods on stock transfer basis and were effecting the sales of the goods at the custome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of the assessable value. In terms of Section 4(4)(d), the only abatement admissible/deductible from the sale consideration would be the taxes paid and the cost of durable and returnable packing. In the instant case, I find that M/s TGL were collecting additional amount termed as "equalised transportation cost" constituting freight, accident insurance, octroi, unloading and handling expenses at the consignees end and breakage compensation, from their customers. The equalised transportation costs varied from Rs. 2.10 P. (per square metre and per mm. thickness of the figured glass sheets) on 18-11-1996 to Rs. 7.00 P during 1999. The aforesaid costs (equalised transportation costs) for various periods were arrived at basing on the actual e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation of the goods. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the legal position on the issue remains settled by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Associated Strips Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 131 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 506 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.) and Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 5. Learned SDR would contend that the part of the realization was towards damage during transport and it is settled that no reduction is permissible towards damage of goods during transit. He has relied on the decisions in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Surya Roshini Ltd. - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 3 and CCE, New Delhi v. Vikram Deter....