Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Electronics Instrumentation & ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 February, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No.: E/1366/2008-DB (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 124/2008(Ahd)/CE/ID/Commr(A) dated 15.07.2008 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I) M/s Electronics Instrumentation & Control : Appellant (s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri J.R. Dave, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Latendu Patra, Authorised Representative CORAM:
Dr. D. M. Misra, Honble Member (Judicial) Mr. Raju, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision : 08.02.2018 Order No. A/10303/2018 Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s Electronics Instrumentation & Control against inclusion of the value of the free supply material in the assessable value.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they are job-workers/manufacturers of excisable goods. He argued that they are manufacturing Electronic Control Panel Board on behalf of M/s Ingersoil-Rand (I) Ltd. For the said purpose, they are receiving certain items from M/s Ingersoil-Rand (I) Ltd. under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and they are not including the value of the said goods in the assessable value., He pointed out that they have raised various issues before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in a cryptic order dismissed their appeal solely relying on the Board Circular No.619/10/2002-CX datd 19.02.2002. He pointed out that they had sought to rely on the decision in the case of Empire Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Bhide 1977 (1) ELT J34; UOI Vs. Parle Product Ltd. 1994 (74) ELT 492 (SC); Ujagar Prints 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC) and Pawan Biscuits 2000 (120) ELT 24 (SC). He further argued that the fact regarding supply of the material under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules has been totally involved.
3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order.
4. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand by observing as follows: -
I have noticed that from the above Boards Circular No. 619/10/2002-CX dated 19.02.2002, Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000, Section 4(1)(a) and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is very clear that the cost of materials, components, parts and similar items relatable to such goods are includible in the price of manufactured goods which are sold to the buyer. It appears that the respondent has mis-interpreted the above Rules, Sections and Boards Circular. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has solely relied on the Boards Circular and totally ignored all other submissions made by the appellant. In these circumstances, we find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a speaking order. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand for passing a speaking order after following the principles of natural justice.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Operative portion of order pronounced in the Court)
(D. M. Misra) (Raju)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
2
Appeal No. E/1366/08