Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (5) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Inclusion of extra amount collected in the name of Majuri and Octroi in the assessable value.
2. Whether the labour charges collected by the appellant should be included in the assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The appellate tribunal observed that during the scrutiny of the financial records, it was found that the appellant had collected extra amounts in the name of Majuri and Octroi from customers in the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The differential duty demand of Rs.4,39,257/- was imposed as these amounts were not included in the assessable value. The tribunal noted that the appellant had receipts from the Surat Municipal Corporation showing payment of octroi on finished goods. The tribunal agreed that the matter regarding octroi charges should be remanded to the original authority for further clarification.

2. Regarding the labour charges, the appellant contended that these charges were collected only when customers requested unloading services at their premises. The appellant argued that since this service was optional, the labour charges should not be included in the assessable value. The tribunal found that there was a mistake by the adjudicating authority in considering the expenditure account, as tempo expenditure was mistakenly taken into account instead of the labour charge account. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's request for remand to provide an opportunity to present their case properly.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present their case adequately without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues involved. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and emphasized that the appellant would not claim a refund of the amount deposited until the finalization of the issue.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates