Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Niphad Ssk Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nasik on 26 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/385/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/JMJ/393/916/NSK/APL/2003 dated 5.12.2003 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Nasik.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) 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?
====================================================== Niphad SSK Ltd Appellant (Represented by: None) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Respondent (Represented by: Mr. A.K. Prabhakar, JDR ) CORAM:
Honble Mr.P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 26.07.2011 Date of Decision: 26.07.2011 ORDER NO..
Per: P.G. Chacko
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against demand of duty of Rs 1,32,860/- and penalty of Rs 10,000/-. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice. The adjournment request dated 26.7.2011 of one Mr Abhay P. Kolte, advocate, has been received today by FAX. However, no Vakalatnama of the said advocate is seen on record. At stay stage, the appellant was represented by an authorized consultant. Today there is no consultant also before us.
2. We have examined the records and heard the learned JDR. The case involves a valuation dispute. The issue is whether certain amounts collected by the assessee from their customers in the name of administrative fee/export fee etc during the period of dispute (January to June 2000) are liable to be included in the assessable value of the subject goods viz rectified spirit and ethyl alcohol cleared during the said period. The appellant has relied on Commissioner vs Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd 1999 (111) ELT 762 (Tribunal), wherein it was held to the effect that the aforesaid fees fell within the ambit of the expression other taxes figuring in the text of Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act and hence liable to be excluded from the assessable value of the goods.
3. The learned JDR fairly submits that the Tribunals order relied on by the assessee was affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court vide Commissioner vs Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd 2001 (132) ELT 523 (SC).
4. The issue is no longer res integra as the same was settled by the apex court long ago against the Revenue. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court.) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk 2