Raghavendra Pre-Stress Products (P) ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 March, 2006
(ii) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal v. Laxmi Engineering 2005 (179) EL T 342.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)M/S. Amrutanjan Limited vs Cce, Chennai Ii on 13 June, 2017
[Emphasis supplied]
Further, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Engineering 2005 (179) ELT 342 (Tri. Delhi), a similar view was taken for the transportation cost incurred by the assessee from the place of removal to the place of delivery is not to be included in determining the assessable value.
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Siggil India Ltd on 1 July, 2009
2. We have heard both sides. The plea of the Revenue that deduction of equalized freight is not admissible as per Rule 5 of the CVR 2000 is not tenable since it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Laxmi Engineering 2005 (179) ELT 342 that Rule 5 nowhere provides that deduction of freight is available only if it is charged on actual basis. The Revenues appeal holding that deduction was permissible was dismissed by the Tribunal. Following the ratio of the decision cited supra we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
Hewlett Packard vs Cce on 10 May, 2005
4. Kisan Mouldings Ltd. v. CCE - Final Order No. 124 - 126/2004 - NB(A) dated 3.3.2004
Ld. Counsel has also relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Laxmi Engineering - and that of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE - .
1