Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik vs Garware Enterprises Ltd on 17 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. E/2396, 2397/04-Mum E/CO/544, 543/04-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/JMJ/185/916/APL/NSK/2004 dated 11.5.2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, 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 :
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?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Appellant Vs. Garware Enterprises Ltd. Respondent Appearance: Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate, for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 17.5.2013 Date of Decision: 17.5.2013 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang
Heard both sides. The Revenue filed these appeals against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plastic shrinkon sleeves and plastic shrinkon RP sleeves falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents are clearing the goods under the invoices and paying duty on the transaction value. The respondents are recovering the freight charges by issuing debit notes to their customers. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000, demanding duty by adding the freight charges to the assessable value of the goods.
3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty.
4. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. The Revenue filed these appeals on the ground that as the respondents are not mentioning the freight charges separately in the invoice under which the goods were cleared, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, the amount recovered as freight is to be added to the assessable value of the goods. The contention of the respondents is that the respondents are clearing the goods at the factory gate and paying appropriate duty on the transaction value and the respondents also made arrangement for transportation of the goods to their customers place and that amount was separately recovered hence the impugned order is rightly passed.
5. We find that as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, the actual cost of transportation from the place of removal to place of delivery of such excisable goods is excluded from the transaction value provided the cost of transportation is charged to the buyers, in addition to the price of goods and shown separately in the invoices for such excisable goods.
6. In the present case, the freight charges are separately recovered from the customers by issuing debit notes, therefore the respondents are fulfilling the conditions imposed under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of on the same grounds.
(Dictated in Court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3