9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1181 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - inclusion of facility charges and cylinder holding charges to the assessable value - Held that - period of dispute involved in these appeals are from September 2000 to August 2001 and from September 2001 to July 2002. This Tribunal vide Final Order 2007 (2) TMI 424 - CESTAT, CHENNAI and Final Order No. 2015 (8) TMI 1066 - CESTAT CHENNAI , in an identical case, remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority. - In view of the Apex Court decision 2009 (7) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA to refer the issue to Larger Bench of Supreme Court and in the present appeals the issues are identical in nature i.e. rental charges collected as facility charges and cylinder holding charges while supplying the gas, it is appropriate that the appeals to be decided only after the final outcome of the Apex Court s Larger Bench decision. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
Inclusion of facility charges and cylinder holding charges in the assessable value. Analysis: The judgment concerns the inclusion of facility charges and cylinder holding charges in the assessable value for the purpose of duty calculation. The appellant-assessee challenged the demand of facility charges, while the Revenue appealed against the exclusion of cylinder holding charges from the assessable value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the facility charges but reduced the penalty. The Revenue contended that the issues are similar to a case pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the period of dispute in these appeals ranged from September 2000 to July 2002. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had referred similar issues to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal reproduced paragraphs from the Supreme Court's decision, highlighting the importance and complexity of the issues at hand. Given the pending decision of the Larger Bench, the Tribunal remanded the cases to the lower appellate authority for a decision based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The parties were directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any final orders were passed. Consequently, all appeals were allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). This judgment underscores the significance of the issues related to the determination of assessable value of excisable goods for the levy of excise duty. The Tribunal acknowledged the potential impact of the decision on the assessment of duty and deemed it appropriate to await the final outcome of the Supreme Court's decision before rendering a judgment in the present appeals. By remanding the cases to the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal ensured that the appeals would be decided in accordance with the ruling of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. This approach reflects a cautious and prudent stance, prioritizing consistency and alignment with higher judicial decisions in resolving contentious issues related to the valuation of excisable goods for duty calculation purposes. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the legal complexity and importance of the issues surrounding the inclusion of facility charges and cylinder holding charges in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. By deferring the decision and remanding the cases to the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that the final outcome aligns with the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. This approach underscores the judicial prudence exercised by the Tribunal in addressing contentious issues with far-reaching implications for the assessment of excise duty on goods.
|
