Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd on 27 January, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 4994-4996 OF 2004 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 513-515/CE/CHD/04 dated 8.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C.S. Rajput, Departmental Representative, for the Revenue, Shri T.R. Rastogi, Advocate for the respondents Coram:
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical);
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), Date of hearing/decision: 27th January, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. DAS:
All the appeals are arising out of common order, therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal. Revenue filed these appeals against Order-in-appeal No. 513-515/CE/CHD/04 dated 8.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh whereby adjudication order was set aside.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco and pan masala falling under Tariff heading No. 2404.40 and 2404.49. The respondents are selling the goods to their depots. They claimed deduction of equalized taxes (i.e. luxury tax, octroi, entry tax and insurance). Show cause notices were issued proposing demand of duty for the period June, 2002 to February, 2003 disallowing the deduction as claimed by the respondents. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.
3. Learned D.R. reiterates the grounds of appeal. He relies upon the Boards Circular No. 643/34/2002-Cx dated 1.7.2002 wherein it has been clarified that as per definition of transaction value taxes are deductible only on actual basis, either paid or payable by the assessee. He submits that in the present case the respondents claimed deduction on equalized basis which is not permissible after the introduction of transaction value w.e.f. 1.07.2000.
4. Learned Advocate reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He draws attention of the Bench to the averment of the respondents that they are ready to debit the duty, if it is less than the deduction claimed by them.
5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records we find from the grounds of appeal that the Revenue has not denied the deduction on merit. The dispute is as to whether deduction is permissible on average/equalized or actual basis. It is seen from the adjudication order that the respondents already took a stand that they are ready to debit the duty, if their expenses are less than the actual deduction. In view of that, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the equalized taxes and the amount of taxes actually paid or payable by the respondents on such goods. The respondents are also directed to produce the relevant records. At this stage learned Advocate submits that there is a decision by the Revenue that the assessee made deduction on the basis of equalized taxes. We direct the adjudicating authority to consider this aspect also and to decide in accordance with law.
6. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK