9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 39 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - clearance of paper in reels form but not on sale basis - short payment of duty - galvanization on the pipe - precedent cases - Held that - The identical matters have been decided by Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2018 (1) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that since, the price of paper reels at the depot at the time of removal was available and the duty had been paid only on that price, there is no short payment of duty. It is an admitted position that there is no resjudicata in the Revenue matter but precedent needs to be followed unless there is any logical and legal reason to differ from - the decision in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2005 (12) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it has been held that concept of valuation is different from the concept of manufacture. In the case, it is noted that the galvanization on the pipes has been done within the factory and place of removal was factory gate. In these circumstances, the facts being different, the decision does not support the case of Revenue. Decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the clearance of paper in reels form to cutting centers constitutes a sale basis. 2. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies in revenue matters. 3. Whether the cost of galvanization should be included in the assessable value of the product. 4. Whether the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case supports their appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant, M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., cleared paper in reels form to cutting centers from where it was cut into sheets and sold. The appellant argued that the clearance to cutting centers was not on a sale basis, citing previous Tribunal judgments in their favor. The Tribunal found that the matter was identical to previous cases and was covered in the appellant's favor by examining the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. The appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's decision in the appellant's own case. Issue 2: The Authorized Representative for Revenue argued against the application of res judicata in revenue matters, referring to relevant decisions. However, the Tribunal emphasized that while there is no res judicata in revenue matters, precedents should generally be followed unless there are logical and legal reasons to differ. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument against the application of res judicata and allowed the appeal based on the appellant's favorable precedent. Issue 3: The question of whether the cost of galvanization should be included in the assessable value of the product was raised, drawing parallels with a previous case involving mild steel pipes and tubes. The Tribunal referenced the decision in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. and emphasized the distinction between valuation and manufacture. The Tribunal found that the facts in the present case were different from the case cited by the Revenue, and therefore, the decision did not support the Revenue's position. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the specific circumstances of the case. Issue 4: The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the decision in the appellant's own case, supported by previous Tribunal judgments and the Apex Court decision, favored the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's arguments and allowed the appeal in line with the precedent set in the appellant's previous cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. based on the favorable precedent established in their own case and previous Tribunal judgments, rejecting the Revenue's arguments against the application of res judicata and the inclusion of galvanization costs in the assessable value of the product.
|
