2023 (11) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of Excise Duty - insurance amount recovered by the appellant from their customers by enhancing the assessable value of the cleared goods by the amount collected as insurance over and above the amount actually paid towards insurance - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the decision of this Tribunal in series of decisions in appellant s own case and further the issue is also squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of BARODA ELECTRIC METERS LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 1997 (7) TMI 126 - SC ORDER , wherein following has been held that The Tribunal accepted the position that equalised freight was charged by the appellant from everyone, but proceeded to say that even though freight cannot be a part of the assessable value that wherever freight actually paid was less than the amount collected by way of freight and transportation charges the difference was appropriated by the appellant and, therefore, the same would be a part of the assessable value. There are no reason to differ - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding duty demand on insurance amount recovered from customers.

Summary:
The appeal was made against Order-in-Appeal No.599-CE/MRT-II/2011, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty on the insurance amount collected by the appellant from customers. The issue was whether the assessable value of cleared goods should be enhanced by the amount collected as insurance. The appellant argued that previous decisions in their own case supported their position. The Authorized Representative for the revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled by previous decisions in the appellant's own case and by a Supreme Court decision in M/s Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. Vs CCE 1997 (94) ELT 13 (SC). The Tribunal concluded that the duty of excise is a tax on the manufacturer, not on profits made by a dealer on transportation. Therefore, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.