2005 (9) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of case law regarding excess freight collection and duty demand.
2. Typographical error in the impugned order.
3. Calculation of duty based on sales to related parties and independent buyers.
4. Consideration of time-bar question in the Final Order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the duty demand for excess freight collection, citing the M/s. Baroda Electric Meter case. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the facts were distinguishable as no proof of profit on freight was provided. The Tribunal emphasized that one cannot claim abatement arbitrarily and upheld the duty demand.

2. A typographical error in the impugned order was rectified by the Tribunal as requested by the appellant, ensuring the correct interpretation of the sentence regarding inclusion in the assessable value.

3. The dispute over duty calculation based on sales to related parties and independent buyers was addressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that if prices to independent buyers were higher, those prices should be used for duty calculation. The Tribunal ordered re-quantification of duty and allowed consideration of the M/s. Maruti Udyog case for cum-duty pricing.

4. The appellant claimed that the Final Order did not consider the time-bar question. The Tribunal clarified that the longer period was justified due to suppression of facts regarding the relationship between the parties, rejecting the time-bar argument. The Tribunal disposed of the ROM application accordingly.

This detailed analysis provides insights into the Tribunal's decisions on each issue raised by the appellant, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.