Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Wika Instruments India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. APPEAL No. E/1574/07-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/SLC/074/07 dated 31.8.2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, 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 : No 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?
====================================================== Wika Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Respondent Appearance:
None for appellant Shri S.V. Nair, Superintendent (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 1.11.2016 Date of Decision: 1.11.2016 ORDER NO This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. P-III/SLC/074/07 dated 31.8.2007.
2. When the matter was called out, none appeared for the appellant. There is a letter on record from the appellant that the matter be decided based on submissions filed along with the appeal memoranda.
3. Heard the learned departmental representative.
4. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the issue that falls for consideration is whether the refund claims of Rs.19,853/- and another one for Rs.13,030/- are to be refunded by the lower authorities or otherwise.
5. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has filed refund claims, only on the ground that they had paid these amounts on the advice of the audit party. According to appellant, the collection of the value of advertising charges from the buyers is not to be included in the assessable value. I find that once the appellant has collected part of the amount of advertising expenses from their buyers and paid the duty liability thereon, which was not protested, nothing survives in this appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
(Dictated in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2