Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Luna Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd on 5 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/1374/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/364/2003 dated 16.12.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Appellant Vs. Luna Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Appearance:
Shri H.B. Negi, Authorised Representative (SDR), for appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 5.7.2011 Date of Decision: 5.7.2011 ORDER NO Per: P.G. Chacko In this appeal filed by the department, the short question arising for consideration is whether the cost of drawings/designs supplied to the assessee (respondent) voluntarily by their customer was liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods supplied to the customer during the period of dispute (October 1999 to December 1999). A similar question was answered in favour of the assessee by this Bench vide CCE, Pune vs. Luna Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (242) ELT 130 (Tri.-Mumbai). It is also noteworthy that the demand of duty dropped by the lower appellate authority amounts to below Rs.10,000/-.
2. For the aforesaid reasons, though there is no representation for the respondent despite notice today, we have taken up this appeal of the Revenue for dismissal. The appeal gets dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2