Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Coromandel Paints Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 February, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD BENCH - DB COURT - I Appeal(s) Involved: E/88/2008-DB (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 3/2008-(C.E.) Commr dated 31.03.2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad) COROMANDEL PAINTS LTD, Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I Respondent(s) Appearance: Mr. Mohan Kunduru, Adv for the Appellant. Mr.Das Thavanam, A.R. for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. M.V.RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE Mr. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 02/02/2018 Date of Decision: 02/02/2018 Final Order No. A/ 30171 / 2018 [Order per: M.V.RAVINDRAN] .
The issue in dispute concerns excise duty in respect of supply and apply contracts which involved both consumption of paints manufactured by the appellant and also application thereof. The appellants took a view that excise duty is required to be paid only on that element of cost representing the value of paints and not on the value relating to application of paints.
2. Heard both sides. We find that the dispute in question for earlier period has already been decided by this Bench as reported in the appellants own case as reported in 2016(343)ELT 848(Try-Hyd). The Bench in that case has held that since sale of paint is linked to the application part of the paint at the customers site, the application is in relation to the goods and therefore, except the value of the labour component for application no other component can be deductible from the sale value for arriving at assessable value.
3. We do not find any reasons to deviate from the said ratio. However, on the issue of penalties under Section 11AC matter involved interpretational dispute between the department and the appellant and also the manner of arriving at the assessable value. There is also no allegation that appellant suppressed the methodology adopted by them. For these reasons we find that the ingredients of Section 11AC are not attracted in this case and there cannot be any penalty that can be imposed under that Section. Appeal disposed of on above terms.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR MEMBER (TECHNICAL) M.V.RAVINDRAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Neela Reddy 2