9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 900 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - Valuation - includibility - State Surcharges, RPO charges and RPO surcharges - Held that - the requirement of approval by the Committee on Disputes has since been done away with by the Hon ble Supreme Court - we restore the appeal to its original number and allow the appeal filed by M/s. HPCL. - appeal allowed.
Issues: Restoration of appeal, inclusion of State Surcharges, RPO charges, and RPO surcharges in assessable value for Central Excise Duty, decision based on previous Tribunal and Supreme Court rulings, removal of requirement for approval by Committee on Disputes.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for restoration of an appeal (No. E/2374/1998) filed by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Tribunal previously due to the lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes, as mandated at that time. Subsequently, the appellant deposited 25% of the disputed amount following the decision of the Committee on Disputes. The primary issue under dispute was the inclusion of State Surcharges, RPO charges, and RPO surcharges in the assessable value of petroleum products for the payment of Central Excise Duty. This valuation issue had been settled in favor of the appellant by a previous Tribunal ruling in BPCL Vs. CCE, Cochin, and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Given the favorable decision by the Supreme Court, the appellant sought restoration of the appeal to secure a decision in their favor. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant presented the relevant orders where the issue had been decided in favor of the appellant previously. Upon reviewing the orders, it was established that the current appeal dealt with an identical issue for a different period, warranting a similar decision. Additionally, it was noted that the requirement for approval by the Committee on Disputes had been eliminated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to its original number and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was granted in favor of the appellant. The judgment was dictated in open court on 05/12/2017.
|
