9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied by the appellant as per the provision of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944 and the rules made thereunder. Reliance placed on this tribunal s order in M/S. KAIRA CAN COMPANY LTD VERSUS C.C.E S. T- AHMEDABAD-III [ 2019 (12) TMI 114 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that in the present case apart from the transaction value the packing material supplied Free of Cost by the customer was also used by the appellant. The value of such packing material was not included. When any Excisable product is manufactured and cleared the value of such goods shall be the total value of goods in the form it is cleared from the factory of the Assessee. It is immaterial that whether a part of the material contained in the final product to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 574/14 15 dated 08.12.2014 passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he upheld the inclusion of value of packaging material freely supplied by the customer in the value of the appellant s final product under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further upheld the demand of CENVAT Credit under rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 on scrap of capital goods. Consequently, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding of the Adjudicating Authority and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeals. 1.2 The following two issues are involved in the present appeals:- (I) Whether the value of Corrugated Boxes received free of cost by Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department that the appellant has not availed the cenvat credit on capital goods at the time of it s receipt. They also the decisions passed by this Hon ble Tribunal on the same issue under identical facts and circumstances. 2.3 In support of his above submission Shri Dixit relied upon the following judgments : 3.1 Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 4.1 We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the main issue to be decided in the present case is whether the cost of corrugated boxes supplied by the buyer is includible in the computation of Assessable Value of the appellant s fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final product by the appellant there is no ambiguity in the law. For ease of reference, we reproduce the new Section 4. 1[4. Valuation of excisable goods for purpose of charging of duty of excise.- (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall- (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of goods are not related and the price is sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of normal price. The appellant on this basis argued that with these judicial pronouncements all the judgements given with reference to the Old Section 4 i.e. before amendment of 2000 shall equally apply in the cases related to the period after amendment of 2000. 13. On going through the facts of the said judgmen we find that the assessee are charging to their customers certain amounts under different heads namely packing charges, facility charges, service charges, delivery charges and collection charges, rental charges , repaid and testing charges. The facts of the present case is different as the appellant is not charging separately. The issue involved in the present case is that the cost of corrugated boxes are used for packing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto whether the Appellant has availed Cenvat Credit in respect to the scrap which was apparently cleared without payment of duty on such capital goods scrap. In the absence of any such investigation and the Department unable to adduce any evidence the allegation made in the Show cause notice is bad. In this position the submission of the appellant must be taken correct as there is no material produced by the revenue that states otherwise. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant have cleared the scrap which is neither generated from cenvatable capital goods or cenvatable input nor from manufacturing. Therefore, the same is clearly not liable for any duty. 4.5 The identical issue was raised in the appellant s own case only for a differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
