Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Industrial Chemicals & Monomers ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 February, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
		APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

Appeal Nos. E/229 & 230/2002

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.35 & 36/2002 (MDU) (GVN) dated 13.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy)

For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Industrial Chemicals & Monomers Ltd.		Appellants

     
     Vs.


Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai	        Respondent

Appearance Shri V. Ravindran, Consultant, for the Appellants Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Date of Hearing: 11.02.2009 Date of Decision: 11.02.2009 Final Order Nos. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in both these appeals is as to whether the transportation costs incurred for clearing goods from one place of removal namely factory to another place of removal namely depot is deductible from the assessable value of the goods.

2. We have heard both sides. We agree with the contention of the Revenue that such costs are not deductible from the assessable value. Our view finds support from CBECs Circular No. 251/85/96-CX dated 14.10.96 and from the plain language of the statute itself. In the light of the above, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeals.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(P. KARTHIKEYAN)	       (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
         Member (T)				  Vice President
Rex 
??

??

??

??




2