9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LCUTTA [ 1995 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] cited by the Learned Counsel, it is seen that in that case the amount was being paid by Railways to Rail India directly, whereas in the present case, the amount was being paid to RITES by the Appellant which was subsequently being reimbursed by the buyers. Therefore the facts are not similar or identical. So far as the Supreme Court s decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE VERSUS M/S TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD. [ 2015 (12) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT] , is concerned, it is seen that the issue before the Hon ble Supreme Court was on account of pre delivery inspection and in respect of after sale service charges, which are different from the mandatory inspection fee paid by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They have been dispatching their finished goods after testing was conducted by RITES. It is an admitted fact that the inspection by RITES were specifically insisted upon by the customers and ultimately the charges paid to RITES were being reimbursed by the buyers. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice on the ground that the charges paid to RITES and finally reimbursed to the Appellant by the buyer is includable in the Assessable Value on which Excise Duty is paid. The Appellants were also clearing the metal scrap being generated in the course of manufacture of their finished goods. Show Cause Notice was issued on the ground since they are able to sell the metal scrap, the same would be liable for Excise Duty Payment. After due process, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., cited by the Learned Counsel is distinguishable on account of factual details. In respect of the confirmed demand on account of metal scrap he reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities and submits that the demands have been correctly confirmed against the Appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the documents. 6. On going through the case law of HDCL cited by the Learned Counsel, it is seen that in that case the amount was being paid by Railways to Rail India directly, whereas in the present case, the amount was being paid to RITES by the Appellant which was subsequently being reimbursed by the buyers. Therefore the facts are not similar or identical. So far as the Supreme Court s decision in the case of TVS Motors Company L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions delivered by this Court with regard to unamended provision on the principle of valuation were still applicable in determining the transaction value under the new provisions of Section 4 of the Act red with Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. In fact, the Order-in-Original in M/s TVS Motors Company Ltd. Or in other cases itself proceeds on that basis. [emphasis supplied] From a careful reading of above extract, it gets clarified that on account of certain charges being paid without which the sale could not have taken place, the same is required to be included in the Assessable Value. In the present case also since it was insisted on by the buyer, the sale could not have taken place wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a clear finding that the impugned charges were includible in the assessable value. Paras 4 and 5 of the said judgment are quoted below : 4. It is settled law that charges paid for inspection or testing by a third party at the option of the buyer cannot form part of the assessable value. This is because such inspection or testing inspections has nothing to do with the marketability. In cases where the buyer does not opt for inspection by a testing agency, the same goods have become marketable without it. The position would be different in a case where every buyer insists upon such inspection by a testing agency. In that case, the goods cannot be sold till that inspection takes place. In no case can the appellant sell the goods without test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried out is optional, the value of the same is not required to be included in the Assessable Value. We find that this case law referred by Learned AR squarely supports the Department s view. Accordingly, the appeal on account of the confirmed demand of Rs. 1,15,419/- on account of the reimbursement to RITES is rejected. 8. In respect of the metal scrap sold by them, it has been held in catena of decisions that marketability alone is not sufficient to levy the Excise Duty but proper manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should have taken place. Further, it has been held that scrap is a necessary byproduct when the manufacture takes place and accordingly it has been held that Excise duty cannot be demanded on sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
