2017 (9) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to re-adjudicate - Valuation - freight charges - inspection charges - includibility - Held that - the grounds raised by Revenue before this Tribunal are that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to adjudicate. It means that the relief sought by them before Learned Commissioner in their opinion was in contravention of the provisions of law. There are contradictions in the grounds raised by Revenue before Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and before this Tribunal. If the grounds of appeal by Revenue before this Tribunal are accepted then the appeal filed before Learned Commissioner (Appeals) become infructuous - the relief sought by them before Learned Commissioner in their opinion was in contravention of the provisions of law. There are contradictions in the grounds raised by Revenue before Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and before this Tribunal - order dated 03/11/2005 passed by original authority will become operational - appeal disposed off.

Issues involved:
1. Inclusion of freight and inspection charges in the assessable value for excise duty calculation.
2. Power of adjudication of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Relief sought by M/s QST regarding the Order-in-Appeal dated 18/10/2006.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of freight and inspection charges in the assessable value
The case involved M/s QST, engaged in manufacturing steel pipes & tubes, where the Revenue contended that freight and inspection charges should be included in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Revenue argued that since inspection was done at M/s QST premises before goods clearance, inspection charges should be part of the assessable value. Additionally, as goods were cleared on the basis of FOR destination and buyers took over goods only at the point of unloading, the Revenue claimed that freight charges should also be included. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted Revenue's grounds, setting aside the previous order and demanding differential duty, penalty, and interest. M/s QST appealed against this decision, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Power of adjudication of the Commissioner (Appeals)
In appeal No. 1627/2007, the Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power of adjudication, arguing that the impugned Order-in-Appeal should be set aside, and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-adjudication. The Tribunal noted contradictions in the grounds raised by Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before the Tribunal itself. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to adjudicate, suggesting that the relief granted by the Commissioner was contrary to the law. Given the conflicting grounds, the Tribunal concluded that setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal would render both appeals inconsequential. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 18/10/2006, making the original authority's order operational.

Issue 3: Relief sought by M/s QST
M/s QST sought to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18/10/2006. Despite the Tribunal's decision to dispose of both appeals by setting aside the said order, the relief sought by M/s QST was indirectly granted as a result of the Tribunal's ruling.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of including freight and inspection charges in the assessable value, the power of adjudication of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the relief sought by M/s QST. By setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Tribunal resolved the conflicting grounds raised by the Revenue and effectively disposed of both appeals, making the original authority's order operational.

← Previous Next →