2016 (1) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Refund - whether the first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the cost of cylinder handling and maintenance charges need not be included in the value of the final product for discharge of Central Excise duty or otherwise - Held that - No order on merits can be passed. However we find strong force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for respondent that the demand is blatantly time barred. The issue of inclusion or non-inclusion of the cost of cylinder handling and maintenance charges was the matter which was being agitated before the various judicial forums hence appellant could have entertained a bonefide belief that the said charges need not be included in the assessable value for discharge of Central Excise duty. Accordingly, the revenue s appeals are dismissed on the point of limitation as raised by the learned Counsel. We find that appeal is also filed by revenue against the order-in-appeal which allowed the refund claim filed by assessee respondent, consequent to the order-in-appeal in his favour. We find this appeal of revenue is also devoid of merits as the refund claim arises as a consequence of the order-in-original being set aside - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the cost of cylinder handling and maintenance charges should be included in the value of the final product for Central Excise duty discharge.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with appeals filed by the revenue against certain Orders-in-Appeal. The main issue in consideration is whether the cost of cylinder handling and maintenance charges should be included in the assessable value for Central Excise duty discharge. The first appellate authority had ruled that these charges cannot be included based on previous decisions by the Apex Court and the Tribunal. However, the revenue contended that the issue was referred to a larger bench by the Apex Court. The revenue also argued that the demand was time-barred as the period in question was known to the Department, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the issue of including these charges in the assessable value was referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court. As the matter was pending before the higher court, the Tribunal refrained from passing any order on the merits. Nevertheless, the Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's argument regarding the limitation period. It was observed that since the issue of including these charges had been a subject of dispute in various judicial forums, the appellant could have genuinely believed that such charges need not be included for Central Excise duty discharge. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed on the grounds of limitation raised by the respondent's counsel.

Additionally, the judgment addressed another appeal filed by the revenue against an order allowing a refund claim by the assessee. The Tribunal found this appeal to be without merit as the refund claim was a result of the original order being set aside in favor of the assessee. Therefore, this appeal by the revenue was also rejected. Ultimately, all the revenue's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.