2018 (9) TMI 635 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of royalty, towing excise duty, transit fee, MPGATSDA tax, terminal tax, entry tax, etc. collected from its customers in assessable value - Held that - Identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VERSUS CCE AND ST, BHOPAL 2017 (1) TMI 1611 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that This issue is sub judice before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development vs. Steel Authority of India and Others 2011 (3) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT . The appellants are at liberty to come again after having final verdict from the Supreme Court, within a prescribed time, if advices so.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Taxation of royalty and other charges collected by the Government of India undertaking and its subsidiaries for coal mining activities.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi addressed the issue of whether certain charges collected by the Government of India undertaking and its subsidiaries should be included in the accessible value for discharging central excise duty on coal. The Department alleged that royalty, towing excise duty, transit fee, MPGATSDA tax, terminal tax, entry tax, etc., collected by the appellants from customers were not accounted for in the excise duty calculation. This issue was common to all the appeals before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the issue of taxing royalty was sub judice and pending before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Department, represented by the Learned DR, agreed with this submission. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been considered in a previous case involving M/s Western Coalfields Ltd., where it was observed that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Area Development Vs. Steel Authority of India. As a result, the parties requested an adjournment of the hearing until a final decision was reached by the Supreme Court in the mentioned case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in line with their earlier decision, the Tribunal granted liberty to the appellants to approach the Tribunal again after the Supreme Court's decision in the pending case. The Tribunal disposed of all the appeals, providing the parties with the opportunity to seek appropriate remedies once the Supreme Court's decision was available. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal.