Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise-Rajkot on 4 November, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ****
Appeal No : E/480/2004
(Arising out of OIA-347/2003/195/RAJ/COMMR-A-/RAJ Dated 17/09/2003 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-RAJKOT)
M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd : Appellant (s)
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise-RAJKOT : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Sh. B.L. Narshimbhan, Shri Anand Nainawati, Sh. Narendra Singh, Sh. Jigar Shah, Advocates
For Respondent (s): Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature:
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
Mr. P.M, Saleem, Honble 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? No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 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, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Mr. P.M, SALEEM, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 04.11.2015
Order No. A/11611 / 2015 Dated 04.11.2015
Per: P.K. Das
This appeal is taken up for hearing in terms of the order of the Honble Supreme Court vide judgement dated 21.08.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 2988 of 2006 (Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot). By the said judgement, the Honble Court set-aside the Tribunal order No. 196/2006 dated 14.02.2006. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:-
As the Tribunal has not adverted to the said fact, we allow this appeal and remand the matter to the Tribunal exclusively for delineation on the said issue. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is set-aside to the said limited extent. We may hasten to clarify, our setting aside of the order would not have no effect whatsoever for the assessment years 1981 to 1985. There shall be no order as to costs.
2. On perusal of the above judgement, we find that the appellant contended that the value packing material supplied by the buyer cannot be included in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of excise duty. The Honble Court remanded the matter of the Tribunal to examine this facts. The Learned Advocate strongly submits that the packing material was supplied by the buyer.
3. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue drew the attention of the Bench, Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.1971. It is stated that the amount of bags, packing, branding and stitching charges not included in the assessable value. In our considered view, there is a factual dispute on this issue. It is proper the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh after examining the facts.
4. In view of the above discussions, we direct the Adjudicating Authority decide this matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & Pronounced in open Court) (P.M.Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) govind 3