Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik vs M/S. Techno Force (I) Pvt. Ltd on 21 August, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/192/2005-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/JMJ/424/916/NSK/APPL/2004 dt. 25.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Nashik ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik :
Appellant VS M/s. Techno Force (I) Pvt. Ltd. :
Respondent Appearance Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) for Appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 21/08/2014
Date of decision : 21/08/2014
ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the respondent on account of valuation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are manufacture of machinery for pharmaceutical industry. The respondents are clearing the said goods to their buyer on payment of Central Excise duty, and also charges the transportation charges separately through debit notes from the buyers and on actual basis. Revenue is of the view that as this transportation charges have not been shown in the invoice separately therefore these transportation charges are to be includible in the assessable value and respondent are required to discharge their duty liability on this transportation charges. The proceedings were initiated initially the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty against the respondent. On appeal the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and hold that freight charges is recollect by the respondents are not includible in the assessable value. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before us.
3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. A request has been received for adjournment on the ground that the respondents have not received copy of the appeal filed by Commissioner. Therefore a copy of appeals may kindly be supplied and matter be adjourned.
4. After hearing the Ld. A.R. we are of the opinion that the appeal itself can be disposed off at this stage, we therefore taken up the appeal for final disposal.
5. The Ld. A.R submits that as per Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000, during the impugned period there was a pre-condition that transportation charges should be shown separately in the invoice as respondent has not fulfilled the said condition of the Rule. Therefore, they are required to pay duty on this transportation charges.
6. Heard the Ld. A.R. Considering the submissions.
7. Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was amended by Notification No. 11/2003-CE (NT) dt. 1.3.2003 and the condition of showing the transportation charges separately in the invoice have been withdrawn. We, further find that there is no allegation against the respondent that they have recovered the transportation charges over and above actually paid by them. It is the contention of the respondent that goods have been sold at their factory gate and whatever the transportation charges paid by them on behalf of the buyers have been charged through debit note. In these circumstances, we do agree with the observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the various decision by this Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In these circumstances, we hold that the transportation charges collected by the respondents are not includible in the assessable value.
8. With these observations, impugned order is upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated in court on) (P. S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm ??
??
??
??
4