Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Chennai vs Rane Brake Linings Ltd on 7 May, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.E/235 to 237/2001
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.131/2000 (M-II) to 133/2000 (M-II) dt. 23.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G.CHACKO, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)
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 should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
CCE Chennai
Appellant/s
Versus
Rane Brake Linings Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri J.P.Gregory, JCDR Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 7.5.2008 Date of decision : 7.5.2008 Final Order No.____________ Per P.G.CHACKO The respondents are manufacturers of automotive parts. During the period of dispute (1994-95 to 1997-98), there were direct sales of the goods to brake system manufacturers against contract prices. In addition to this, wholesale dealers were also appointed, who received the goods from the respondents factory as also from their sales depots functioning in different parts of the country. The respondents had filed price declaration mentioning the sale price of their depot prices. They claimed abatement in respect of freight, insurance and turnover tax from depot sale price. As the actual amounts of these elements were not known at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory, the assessments were provisional as permitted by the proper officer of Central Excise. Such provisional assessments were permitted against execution of bond and production of Bank Guarantee. The assessments for each fiscal year were finalized at the end of the year. In some cases, such finalization resulted in refund of duty, while in other cases it gave rise to differential duty demands. The original authority, however, declined refund, but confirmed demand of differential duty. This was on account of the abatement of post-manufacture expenses (PME) from depot sale price. Aggrieved by the decision of the original authority, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter, relying on the apex courts decision in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. Vs Collector, 1997 (94) ELT 13 (SC), held that the assessee was entitled to abatement of equalized freight from the depot sale price and, accordingly, the assessee got relief.
2. In the present appeal of the Revenue, it is admitted that the assessments in fiscal year were originally provisional and were eventually finalized, but it is opined that the assessees arguments that no duty is to be paid because the equalized freight has already been included in the price makes Rule 9B procedure of provisional assessment and finalization thereof redundant.
3. We have heard the Ld.JCDR reiterating the above plea. We have also heard the ld.counsel arguing in support of the appellate Commissioners order. We find that the assessee did not claim abatement of equalized freight (factory to depot) from depot sale price from 28.9.96 (the date on Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was amended to make depot also place of removal), a fact noted in the impugned order and acknowledged in the grounds of this appeal. Finalization of the provisional assessments in terms of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is also a fact not in dispute. The reliance placed by the lower appellate authority on the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in Baroda Electric Meters case has not been question in this appeal on any valid ground. We also note that, in a similar case viz. Commissioner Vs W.S. Industries, 2007 (213) ELT 413 (Tri.-Chennai) cited by counsel, we dismissed a similar appeal of the department.
4. The order of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) does not call for interference as it is in accordance with law and the case law cited by ld.counsel. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (P.G.CHACKO)
MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J) gs
4
5