9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 418 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - Whether transportation of the goods will form part of the assessable value of the goods cleared by appellants - Held that - On going through the case records we find that no such case has been made out therefore the argument that the transporting company is a related person and consideration realised by the transporting company for transportation should form part of the assessable value has no legal support. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act refers to related person only in the context of a sale to a related person. The Revenue has not been able to prove that the partnership firm of M/s. Miracle Trading Co. is a proxy with no separate entity. Neither is any case made out that part of the price of the goods is being realised by the transporting company for the benefit of the appellant company. Therefore in the facts of the case we do not see any merit in the orders of the lower authorities and we are in agreement with the argument of the appellants that the proceeds realised by M/s. Miracle Carrier and Trading Co. towards transportation of the goods will not form part of the assessable value of the goods cleared by appellants - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Assessable value for excise duty - Inclusion of transportation charges Applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act Penalty imposition on director Assessable value for excise duty - Inclusion of transportation charges: The case involved manufacturers of conductors who supplied goods to State Electricity Boards. The dispute arose regarding whether transportation charges should be included in the assessable value for paying excise duty, as the transportation was undertaken by a firm related to the directors of the appellant company. The Revenue argued that the charges should be included, while the appellants contended that the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the buyer's premises should not form part of the assessable value. The Tribunal analyzed various Supreme Court decisions and concluded that the transportation cost from the factory gate to the buyer's premises should not be included in the assessable value, unless it is proven that the price of the goods is being collected under the guise of transportation cost. As the Revenue failed to establish that the transporting company was merely a proxy for the appellants, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. Applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act: The Revenue argued that as the goods were to be delivered on a FOR destination basis, the places of delivery were the places of removal for the goods, and therefore, the assessable value should include freight from the factory to the place of removal. However, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Escorts JCB Ltd. case by the Apex Court, which held that the place of removal in such cases is the factory gate, not the place of delivery. The Tribunal found that the Revenue could not prove that the partnership firm undertaking transportation was merely a proxy for the appellants or that part of the price of the goods was being realized for the appellant's benefit through transportation charges. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and ruled in favor of the appellants. Penalty imposition on director: In the adjudication proceedings, a penalty was imposed on a director of the appellant company. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and ultimately set aside the penalty imposed on the director, along with allowing the appeals related to the assessable value for excise duty and the applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal provided consequential benefit to the appellants by allowing the appeals and overturning the lower authorities' orders. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, ruling that the transportation charges should not be included in the assessable value for excise duty. The Tribunal also clarified the applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and set aside the penalty imposed on the director, providing consequential benefit to the appellants.
|
