9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (6) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
The conflicting decisions regarding the inclusion of Steel Development Fund (SDF), Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund (EGEAF), and Joint Plant Committee Cess/charges (JPC) in the assessable value of iron and steel manufactured by various manufacturers of steel in India. Summary: The appeals were referred to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions by different Benches regarding the inclusion of certain charges in the assessable value of iron and steel. The Eastern Bench's contrary view was criticized for not following proper judicial procedures. The Essential Commodities Act empowered the Central Government to regulate iron and steel prices. Notifications authorized the collection of SDF, EGEAF, and JPC Cess by manufacturers for specific funds. These amounts were not to be appropriated by the manufacturers but remitted to the Joint Plant Committee (JPC). The question was whether SDF, EGEAF, and JPC Cess should be part of the assessable value of iron and steel. The notifications specified that these amounts were to be added to ex-works prices and remitted to the JPC. Legal analysis showed that these amounts were not part of the price of goods manufactured. Court precedent supported that amounts collected for specific purposes, like charity, are not part of the price of goods. The argument that all amounts paid by customers should form part of the normal price for assessment under the Central Excise Act was deemed fallacious. The SDF, EGEAF, and JPC Cess did not fall under categories for deduction in the assessable value calculation. The Eastern Bench's decision was found to be incorrect, and the correct legal position was established based on a previous Tribunal decision. It was held that amounts collected for SDF, EGEAF, and JPC Cess do not form part of the assessable value of manufactured goods. Lower authorities' decisions based on the Eastern Bench's ruling were set aside, and Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Additionally, it was decided that packing charges are not includible in the assessable value of goods, following a previous Tribunal decision. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
