Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... vs Voltas Switchgear Ltd on 25 May, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/3470/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. KKS (228)228/M-VI/2002 dated 24.10.2002 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Mumbai IV, VI & Goa.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III Appellant Vs. Voltas Switchgear Ltd Respondent Appearance:
Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 25.5.2010 Date of Decision: 25.5.2010 ORDER NO Per: P.G. Chacko The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether, for the period from 1.7.00 to 31.3.01, any notional interest on the advances taken by the assessee from their buyers would be includible in the assessable value of the goods. Today there is no representation for the respondent despite notice. The appellant is represented by the SDR, who has produced a copy of the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in Commissioner vs ISPL Industries Ltd 2003 (154) ELT 3 (SC), as required by the Bench. In the case of ISPL Industries, the Honble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions including VST Industries Ltd vs Collector 1998 (97) ELT 395 (SC), held that such interest which accrued to the assessee on advances made to them by their buyers would not be included in the assessable value of the goods. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on VST Industries (supra) for holding that such interest on advances was not includible in the assessable value of the goods. The grounds of the Revenues appeal are silent about the case law relied on by the lower appellate authority. This apart, it is not the case of the Revenue that the interest on advances made by the buyers in any way influenced the price of the goods.
2. The issue stands settled by the apex court against the Revenue and, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court) (S.K. Gaule) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.) (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. dated passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai) For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) ======================================================
2. 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Vidyadhar H Verma Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
None for appellant Shri Authorised Representative (DR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 25.5.2010 Date of Decision: 25.5.2010 ORDER NO Per: P.G. Chacko The appellant in appeal No C/800/01 passed away on 11.1.2010 as indicated in the death certificate issued by the competent authority in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (copy available on record). No application for continuance of the proceedings has been filed under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 by any legal heir or legal representative of the deceased. The appeal is therefore dismissed as having abated. (Pronounced in Court) (S.K. Gaule) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. (Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No. dated passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) ======================================================
3. 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== . Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
Shri for appellant Shri Authorised Representative (DR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 25.5.2010 Date of Decision:25.5.2010 ORDER NO Per: P.G. Chacko (Pronounced in Court) (S.K. Gaule) Member (Technical) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk 1