9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Inclusion of Dharmada charges in the assessable value. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of goods, collected Dharmada charges from customers during the sale of goods. The Commissioner (Appeal) held that these charges were compulsorily collected and should be included in the assessable value. The appellant argued that Dharmada charges should not be included, citing various decisions from High Courts and the Supreme Court related to Sales Tax and Income Tax. The appellant also relied on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Acer India Limited, contending that Dharmada charges were not connected to the sale of goods and should not be considered in the assessable value. The Senior Advocate argued that Dharmada charges should not be included in the assessable value, referring to the definition of Transaction Value under the Central Excise Act. The Senior Advocate contended that the charges were collected on the occasion of sale, not in connection with the sale. However, the SDR argued that the Supreme Court had already settled the issue in the case of Collector v. Panchmukhi Engineering Works, stating that Dharmada charges should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the SDR, stating that the issue of including Dharmada charges in the assessable value was settled by the Supreme Court. They observed that the duty is to be charged on each removal, and Transaction Value includes the price paid by the buyer in connection with the sale. The Tribunal found that the Dharmada charges were collected in connection with the sale of goods and should be included in the assessable value. They noted that the duty amount needed to be recalculated by treating the prices charged in the invoices as cum-duty-price and applying the correct rate of duty. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that Dharmada charges are includible in the assessable value of the goods. However, they directed that the demand arising from this inclusion should be reworked by treating the invoice price as cum-duty-price. The appeal was partly allowed by way of remand.
|
