9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 224 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of excise duty - manufacture of Sorbitol Liquid Glucose - excess freight collected as compared to the actual freight paid to the transporters should be included in the assessable value or not - HELD THAT - On the identical issue, in the same set of facts, in the appellant s own case, this Tribunal in KASHYAP SWEETNERS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, VAPI AND JITENDRA PANDEY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, VAPI 2023 (7) TMI 1111 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that excess amount of freight collected from the customers is profit on account of transportation and not part and parcel of the value of the goods and thereby not included in the assessable value. In view of the above decision in the appellant s own case only for the different period, there being identical issue involved in the present case, the issue is no longer res-integra accordingly, the demand and penalties are not sustainable. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the excess amount of freight collected from customers should be included in the assessable value for the purpose of charging excise duty. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Inclusion of excess freight in assessable value The Appellate Tribunal, in this case, considered whether the excess amount of freight collected from customers by the appellant should be included in the assessable value for charging excise duty. The appellant argued that the excess freight collected is profit on transportation and not part of the value of the goods. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that the excess amount of freight collected from customers should not be included in the transaction value for charging excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that excise duty is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. Issue 2: Application of legal precedents The Tribunal also considered the applicability of legal precedents, including the decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters vs. Collector of Central Excise, and held that the excess freight collected by the appellant should not be included in the transaction value for charging excise duty. The Tribunal noted that this decision was given with reference to un-amended Section 4 and Rules made thereunder prior to 01.07.2000, but it was held that the same principle prevails even after the amendment. Issue 3: Consideration of net difference in freight The appellant presented a chart showing instances where they had paid excess freight and collected lesser freight from customers. They argued that the overall demand should be based on the net difference of excess freight and lesser freight collected. However, the Tribunal focused on the main issue of whether the excess paid freight should be included in the transaction value for charging excise duty. Conclusion: Based on the various judgments cited and the precedent set in the appellant's own case for a different period, the Tribunal concluded that the excess freight collected from customers should not be included in the assessable value for charging excise duty. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, addressing each issue involved in the case.
|
