Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bwl Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 15 January, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI
COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No.1510 of 2005
Date of Hearing/Decision: 15.01.2013.
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.772/CCU/CHD/2004, dated 30.11.04 issued by CCE, Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
BWL Ltd. Appellants
Versus
CCE, Chandigarh Respondent
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member Present for the Appellants Ms. Reena Khair, Adv.
Present for Respondent Shri A.K.Jain, JCDR Final Order No.55215/2013 Dated : 15.01.13 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to deduction of equivalised freight so as to arrive at the correct assessable value or not? The lower authorities have disallowed the said deduction by observing that they do not match actual freight charges. In as much as the actual cost of transportation from factory gate to the place of delivery is different, the deduction of equalised freight is not permissible. We find that the issue is no more res-integra. Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Engineering reported as 2009(179)ELT342(Tri.) has not accepted the Revenues plea that deduction of equivalent freight is not permissible from Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Similarly in the case of Bhopal Wires P.Ltd. reported as 2010(253)ELT681(Tri.), it was held that Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, not provide deduction of freight only on actual basis and held that equalised freight shown separately in the invoices is excludable.
2. It is not the Revenues case that the appellant is recovering the cost of their final product under the garb equalised freight. As such in terms of declaration of law by the Tribunal such equivalised freight has to be held as admissible deduction. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member (Sahab Singh) Technical Member RK-I ??
??
??
??
2