Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Thane - I vs M/S Clariant India Ltd on 21 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/924/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PD/110/Th.-I/2003 dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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?
====================================================== CCE, Thane - I Appellant Vs. M/s Clariant India Ltd.
Respondent Appearance:
Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 21.03.2014 Date of Decision: 21.03.2014 ORDER NO. Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PD/110/Th.-I/2003 dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III, wherein the lower appellate authority has upheld the method of computation of duty adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and rejected the claim of the Revenue that the same is not correct.
2. The short question for consideration in this case is from the cum-duty price, how to determine the excise duty liability and the assessable value. Both the lower authorities have held that from the cum-duty price, the permissible deductions should be abated first and thereafter excise duty should be calculated and deducted and the assessable value arrived at. The Revenues contention is that this method is incorrect and from the cum-duty price first, excise duty should be deducted first and then on the reduced price, the permissible deductions should be arrived at. Therefore, there is an error in the order of the lower authorities.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that this issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GOI Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) wherein in para -67 of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that from the cum-duty price, the permissible deductions shall be deducted first and thereafter excise duty amount should be computed.
4. Since the matter has already been settled against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
2