9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 507 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Insurance charges collected from purchasers - Held that - goods were sold by the appellants from the factory gate, which is the place of removal and delivery took place at the buyers end as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this connection I have perused the case laws of M/s. Escorts JCB Limited v. CCE, Delhi-II 2002 (10) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA cited by the appellants. I find that ratio thereof is squarely applicable looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, Board vide its Circular No. 59/1/2003-CX., dated 3-3-2003 also clarified that insurance charges will not be includible in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 1,07,581.00 is not sustainable and same is set aside - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against OIA setting aside demand of duty based on insurance charges collected from purchasers. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) setting aside the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,07,581/- imposed on the respondent. The first appellate authority had set aside the demand on the grounds that the duty was confirmed by the adjudicating authority based on insurance charges collected by the respondent from their purchasers. Despite the absence of representation from the respondent, the issue was taken up for disposal due to its narrow scope. The facts were undisputed that the respondent sold goods from the factory gate, collected insurance charges, and paid them to the insurance company on behalf of their purchasers. The first appellate authority, in setting aside the demand, relied on the case laws and a circular by the Board which clarified that insurance charges were not includible in the duty calculation based on the delivery taking place at the buyer's end. The first appellate authority's decision was deemed correct as it followed the Tribunal's decision upheld by the Supreme Court in a similar case. The Tribunal found no fault with the first appellate authority's conclusion as it was based on established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The impugned order was deemed correct, legal, and free from any infirmity, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, affirming the decision to uphold the first appellate authority's order setting aside the duty demand related to insurance charges collected from purchasers.
|
