2007 (8) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) Appellant PSU unit had removed goods to their sales outlets under Administrative Pricing Mechanism but revenue rejected the same and demand raised by applying Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of CEA,1944 and Section 4(1)(b)ibid in two distinct period for valuation purpose Valuation of appellant accepted and demand set aside

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of Revenue's appeal and upholding abatement in Turnover Tax and C & F Charges.

Abatement in Turnover Tax: The Commissioner (A) granted abatement in Turnover Tax after finding the assessee entitled to it. The Commissioner relied on a previous Apex Court judgment in a similar case to support this decision. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings, stating that the issue was covered in the assessee's favor by the Apex Court judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the abatement in Turnover Tax was justified, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Abatement in C & F Charges: The Commissioner (A) also granted abatement in C & F Charges after determining that the charges in question were not collected as freight or insurance charges but were related to loading, unloading, and storage/dispatch of goods by the C & F Agent. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's analysis, stating that these charges did not qualify as C & F Charges. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision legally sound and upheld it. There was no evidence presented by the Revenue to dispute the nature of these charges. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the abatement in C & F Charges as well.

Conclusion: The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee on both issues of abatement in Turnover Tax and C & F Charges, citing legal precedents and lack of evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the orders of the authorities below.