Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 October, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad -ooOoo- Appeal No. : E/464/2008 [ Arising out of OIA-2/2008-AHD-I-CE/ID/COMMR-A- dtd 17.1.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-I ] M/s Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise- AHMEDABAD-I - Respondent (s)
Represented by For Assessee : Shri S J Vyas, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 21/10/2015 ORDER No. A/11651 / 2015 dtd 21/10/2015 Per : Mr.P.K. Das, After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass. The Appellant sent the raw material to the job worker for processing. The job worker returned some scrap material to appellant, which was damaged during the job wok process. The appellant charged the amount to the job worker on the damaged material. Thereafter, the appellant sold the scrap on transaction value to the other person. According to Revenue, the amount charged by the appellant to the job worker is higher than the transaction value and therefore, the appellant collected the additional consideration, which would be included in the transaction value.
2. We do not find any material from the record that there is a collection of additional consideration from the buyer of the appellant for selling of scrap material. Hence, there is no reason for addition of an amount in the transaction value. This view is supported by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut-I Vs Bisleri International Pvt Ltd 2005.186.ELT.257 (SC). The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
13.The short question which arises? for determination in the present case is - whether the department has been able to show that the intrinsic price of aerated water was more than the price actually charged to the buyer? According to the department, the actual price was lower on account of incentives given by M/s. Britco, the supplier of concentrates to the assessee. As found by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Tribunal, the prices had to be reduced by the assessee on account of competition in the market. Further, the prices stood reduced on account of concession given by M/s. Britco, supplier of concentrates (raw material), to the assessee. There is no evidence of flow back of any additional consideration from the buyers of aerated water (beverage) to the assessee. On account of cut throat competition from Pepsi, M/s. Britco had to provide incentive to the assessee. But for the incentive from the supplier of concentrates (raw material), the assessee was not in a position to face acute competition from Pepsi. On the other hand, the evidence on record indicates that price uniformity was maintained. No favour for extra commercial reasons were shown to any of the buyers of aerated water. There is no evidence of any concession to any of the buyers. There is no evidence of existence of any favoured buyers. In the circumstances, Rule 5 is not applicable.
3. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami
??
??
??
??
2