Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Siggil India Ltd on 1 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/610/2002
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.51/2002 (M-I) dated 23.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, Technical Member
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
Vs.
M/s. SIGGIL India Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Appellant Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate and Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 01.07.2009 Date of Decision: 01.07.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The claim for refund of Rs.2,32,633/- filed by the respondents herein was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the duty was paid on the transport charges for supplies made to ICF in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions stipulated under Rule 5 of the CVR, 2000 for showing cost of transport separately in the invoice. The adjudication order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the contention of the assessee that equalized freight was eligible deduction; however he restricted the amount to Rs.2,16,458/- on the ground that part of the claim was hit by time-bar.
2. We have heard both sides. The plea of the Revenue that deduction of equalized freight is not admissible as per Rule 5 of the CVR 2000 is not tenable since it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Laxmi Engineering 2005 (179) ELT 342 that Rule 5 nowhere provides that deduction of freight is available only if it is charged on actual basis. The Revenues appeal holding that deduction was permissible was dismissed by the Tribunal. Following the ratio of the decision cited supra we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(DR. C. SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
2