C.C.E. Vs. Himachal Futuristic

C.C.E. vs Himachal Futuristic

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 05, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41013

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/41013
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Dec 05, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.E.

Respondent

Himachal Futuristic

Excerpt

1. the appeal of the revenue is directed against the finding regarding valuation of telecommunication equipment supplied by the respondent to m/s. bsnl. the commissioner held to the effect that sale price should constitute the assessable value. in passing that order, he was following the decision of this tribunal in the case of telephone cables ltd. v. cce, chandigarh the present appeal has been filed on the following grounds :- (i) the deductions on account of late supply of goods are not admissible. (ii) the relied upon decision in case of telephone cables ltd., has not been accepted by the department.2. when the matter came up for hearing, we have perused records and heard both sides. it is seen that the decision of the tribunal in the case of telephone cables ltd., (supra) has become final upon the dismissal of the appeal filed against it by the hon'ble supreme court reported in 2004 (163) e.l.t. all. 7.3. on the question of deductions on account of late supply, it is noticed that there were no such deductions. under the agreement, supplies continued over a period of time and prices were provisional.final prices were to be in terms of the purchase order prevalent at the time of each supply. the commissioner has ordered that assessments be finalized in terms of prices under the relevant purchase order. there is no error in the assessment order by the commissioner, inasmuch as transaction values have been ordered to be taken as assessable value.there is also no dispute that the transaction was, in any way, vitiated by consideration other than commercial.4. in view of what is stated above, there is no merit in the present appeal of the revenue. it is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the finding regarding valuation of telecommunication equipment supplied by the respondent to M/s. BSNL. The Commissioner held to the effect that sale price should constitute the assessable value. In passing that order, he was following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Telephone Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds :- (i) The deductions on account of late supply of goods are not admissible.

(ii) The relied upon decision in case of Telephone Cables Ltd., has not been accepted by the department.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, we have perused records and heard both sides. It is seen that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Telephone Cables Ltd., (supra) has become final upon the dismissal of the appeal filed against it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. All. 7.

3. On the question of deductions on account of late supply, it is noticed that there were no such deductions. Under the agreement, supplies continued over a period of time and prices were provisional.

Final prices were to be in terms of the Purchase Order prevalent at the time of each supply. The Commissioner has ordered that assessments be finalized in terms of prices under the relevant Purchase Order. There is no error in the assessment order by the Commissioner, inasmuch as transaction values have been ordered to be taken as assessable value.

There is also no dispute that the transaction was, in any way, vitiated by consideration other than commercial.

4. In view of what is stated above, there is no merit in the present appeal of the Revenue. It is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties C.C.E. vs Himachal Futuristic Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.