2015 (2) TMI 518 - AT - Central Excise

Differential duty liability - Assessee collected additional amounts as transportation charges by raising various debit notes but not indicating the said amounts on the invoice - Held that - there is nothing on the records to show that the amounts collected were not freight charges but something else. On perusal of the records it also transpires that the respondent had collected only an amount, which is freight paid by them to the transporters and raised a debit note separately. We find strong force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel that the issue is now covered by various decisions and recent being CCE vs. Garware Enterprises Ltd. - 2014 (6) TMI 819 - CESTAT MUMBAI . We find it so. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Garware Enterprises Ltd. (supra). In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is correct and do not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Differential duty liability on the respondent for not indicating additional transportation charges on the invoice.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved two appeals directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR/MIII/145-146/2004 dated 22.12.2004. The appeals were disposed of by a common order as they raised the same question concerning the same assessee. The issue revolved around the respondent's collection of additional amounts as transportation charges without indicating them on the invoice during the period from 07/2000 to 03/2003. The adjudicating authority had confirmed demands against the respondent, including interest and penalties. However, the first appeal authority set aside the demands by considering the collected amounts as only transportation or freight charges, relying on various judgments of the Tribunal.

The main contention of the Revenue in the appeals was based on Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, which required the assessee to show the cost of transportation separately on the invoice to exclude it from the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had collected amounts as freight paid to transporters and raised debit notes separately. The Tribunal found support in the argument that the issue was covered by previous decisions, including the case of CCE vs. Garware Enterprises Ltd. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was correct and did not have any infirmity.

In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, affirming the decision of the Tribunal that the collected amounts were indeed transportation or freight charges and not subject to additional duty liability.