2011 (9) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Assessable value - transportation charges - The contention of the Revenue is that in the invoices issued, the freight charge is not shown separately - Therefore, the price mentioned in the invoice is the sole consideration for the goods - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong vs India Carbon Ltd 2011 -TMI - 205547 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ,relied on by the respondents held that transportation charges upto buyers premises, in case transportation is arranged by the manufacturer, are not to be included in the assessable value of the goods - Further, find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the abatement subject to verification by the adjudicating authority - decided in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding abatement in respect of transport charges.
2. Whether the freight charge shown separately in the invoices is necessary for determining the sole consideration for the goods.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents by the respondents to support their claim for abatement in freight charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding abatement in respect of transport charges

The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to abatement in transport charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abatement in respect of transport charges incurred for transferring excisable goods from the depot to the customer's premises, subject to verification by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision was in line with legal precedents and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing the safeguard of verification by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 2: Whether the freight charge shown separately in the invoices is necessary for determining the sole consideration for the goods

The Revenue contended that since the freight charge was not shown separately in the invoices, the price mentioned in the invoice should be considered as the sole consideration for the goods. However, the Tribunal considered legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal itself, which held that transportation charges up to the buyer's premises need not be included in the assessable value of the goods if transportation is arranged by the manufacturer. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument regarding the necessity of showing freight charges separately in the invoices.

Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant legal precedents by the respondents to support their claim for abatement in freight charges

The respondents relied on legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal, to support their claim for abatement in freight charges. The Tribunal noted that the legal precedents cited by the respondents established that transportation charges up to the buyer's premises, when arranged by the manufacturer, do not form part of the assessable value of the goods. The Tribunal found the respondents' reliance on these legal precedents to be valid and in line with established legal principles, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow abatement in transport charges and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the legal principles established by relevant precedents.

← Previous Next →