2011 (1) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Transaction value - whether the cost of free packing material supplied by the buyers to the appellants would form part of transaction value or not appellants directed to deposit of the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, Commissioner (Appeals) hear the appeal filed by the appellants on merits and shall pass an order in accordance with the provisions of law Appeal disposed off

Summary

Issues: Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Inclusion of cost of free packing material in transaction value.

Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon, dated 1.9.2009, which was dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 35F. The Commissioner required the appellants to deposit the entire duty amount and penalty to proceed with the appellate remedy. The duty demand and penalty were confirmed by the adjudicating authority, with a partial deposit made by the appellants. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a further sum of Rs.2,00,000 within eight weeks to pursue the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal.

Inclusion of cost of free packing material in transaction value:
The main issue revolved around whether the cost of free packing material supplied by buyers should be considered in the transaction value. The appellants cited a previous decision, but the Tribunal noted that the decision pertained to a period before July 2000, while the present case concerned a subsequent period. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider this temporal difference in deciding the issue. Despite not delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It directed the appellants to deposit the specified sum within eight weeks for the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on its merits and pass an order in accordance with the law. Non-compliance with the deposit requirement would lead to the automatic dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the inclusion of the cost of free packing material in the transaction value. The Tribunal provided a clear directive for the appellants to make a further deposit to pursue their appeal, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. The decision underscored the significance of temporal considerations in legal matters and set a clear consequence for non-compliance with the deposit directive.