2005 (1) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purposes. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeal) held that these charges were compulsorily collected and were includible in the assessable value. The period of dispute is July 2000 to June 2001. The concept of transaction value was applicable for the period in question. 2.Heard both sides. 3.The ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri V.S. Nankani argued that Dharmada is not includible in the assessable value and cited in support several decisions rendered by the High Courts as well as Supreme Court in connection with Sales Tax and Income Tax wherein it was held that extra amount of this type collected from the customers do not form part and parcel of sale price in the case of Sales Tax and will not form part of assessee's income. He cited the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sale of goods in the present case was an occasion when such charges (Dharmada) were collected along with the value of the goods. He, therefore, argued that Dharmada cannot form part of assessable value. In the event, the charges (Dharmada) are found to be includible in the assessable value, the demand has to be recalculated by treating the price as cum-duty-price and by applying the correct rate of duty. 4.The ld. SDR, Shri Ajay Saxena contended that the issue is no more res integra as the Supreme Court in the case of Collector v. Panchmukhi Engineering Works reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 550 (S.C.) held that Dharmada charged by an assessee is includible in the assessable value. 5.We agree with the SDR's contention that the issue of inclu....