9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S. TAX, SURAT-II [ 2017 (7) TMI 1034 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] , where the issue involved was whether the amount equal to 7% of the value of the goods, collected as insurance charges under the head cost of transportation from the dealers/buyers is includible in the assessable value and chargeable to duty. The Tribunal had categorically noted that the issue of charging duty on the said insurance charges by adding to the assessable value is settled by this Tribunal as similar proceedings initiated has been decided in M/S GUJARAT BOROSIL LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S. TAX, SURAT-II [ 2017 (7) TMI 1034 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - The Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the amount equal to 7% of the value of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Bimal Jain , Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K. Meena , Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER BINU TAMTA : 1. Separate appeals have been filed by M/s. Kajaria Ceramics Limited The Appellant and the two Directors, challenging the order-in-original no.ALW-EXCUS-000-COM-41-17-18 dated 05.02.2018, whereby the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty was affirmed. 2. The appellant is manufacturing ceramic tiles and is having central excise registration as well as service tax registration. Considering the fragile nature of the tiles being prone to breakage/quality defect and also to maintain the Kajaria brand value, the appellant company charges handling charges @0.6% to 1% from their dealers/cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bimal Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Meena, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the present controversy has been decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Borosil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Surat-II 2018(364) ELT 281 (Tri.-Ahmd.) , where the issue involved was whether the amount equal to 7% of the value of the goods, collected as insurance charges under the head cost of transportation from the dealers/buyers is includible in the assessable value and chargeable to duty. The Tribunal had categorically noted that the issue of charging duty on the said insurance charges by adding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the freight charge was paid in advance by the appellants and balance amount was required to be paid by the buyer on reaching destination; remaining amount shown in the cost of transportation, which they claim as 7% of the total value of the goods inclusive of cost of packing charge, freight charge etc.. Thus, in our view it is immaterial whether the deduction is claimed by including the said 7% charge in the total price, or the same is shown separately, without including it in the assessable value but on merit to be added to the assessable value. The question for consideration is, whether the amount collected, for compensating the customers towards breakage of glass, during the course of transit, to be added to the assessable value, or othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
