2014 (3) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) - Freight and service charges - Held that - Dispute in the present appeal is for the period January 2004 to July 2011 i.e. the period after 1.7.2000 when the new Section 4 came into existence. We find that in the case of applicant itself the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.11.2002 (2002 (11) TMI 240 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI) has decided the issue in the applicant s favour holding that these charges are not to be included in the assessable value even for the period after 1.7.2000 - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner on M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
2. Inclusion of after-sale charges claimed as insurance and transit charges in the assessable value under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI considered the applications filed by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery amounting to Rs. 37,96,91,593/- along with equal penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, where the appellant was represented by Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, and the respondent by Shri I. Baig, D.R. The judgment was delivered by Mr. Sahab Singh.

Issue 2: The dispute revolved around the inclusion of after-sale charges, claimed as insurance and transit charges, in the assessable value as per Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The department alleged that these charges, collected by the applicant but not added to the assessable value, constituted additional consideration under Rule 4(3)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously decided in favor of the applicant by the Tribunal in a Final Order dated 27th November 2002. The Tribunal upheld the previous decision, stating that the charges in question were not to be included in the assessable value even for the period after 1.7.2000 when the new Section 4 came into existence. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition filed by the applicants, staying the recovery of duty, interest, and penalty until the appeals were disposed of.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in legal decisions and the application of precedents in resolving similar disputes. It also underscores the significance of understanding the specific provisions of the law, such as the Central Excise Valuation Rules, in determining the assessable value for taxation purposes.