Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cadbury India Limited vs Pune - I on 22 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NOS: E/51 & 52/2004 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: PI/292 & 293/3003 dated 16/09/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune - I.] For approval and signature: Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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 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? : Seen 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? : Yes Cadbury India Limited ...Appellant Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - I ...Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.G. Sheth, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.B. Negi, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 22/06/2011 Date of decision: 22/06/2011 ORDER NO:
Per: Ashok Jindal:
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders denying deduction on account of cheque discounting charges from the assessable value for the period prior to 01/07/2000.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of cocoa and cocoa products, chocolates, etc. They filed their price-lists for the period April 1994 to December 1996 wherein they have claimed deduction on account of (i) equalised freight, (ii) additional sales tax, (iii) turnover tax, (iv) transit insurance, (v) octroi, and (vi) cheque discounting charges. The price-lists were provisionally approved but during the course of finalisation of price-lists the deductions claimed by the appellants on these accounts were denied. Therefore, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed their claim for equalised freight, additional sales tax, turnover tax, transit insurance and octroi but denied the claim of cheque discounting charges holding that cheque discounting charges for local cheques having the interest element which affects the assessable value and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for deduction of cheque discounting charges from their assessable value. Against the said observation, the appellants are before us.
3. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned advocate for the appellants appeared and submitted that in a series of decisions of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that cheque discounting charges/ bank charges are deductible from the assessable value prior to the period 01/07/2000. He specifically relied on the following decisions:
(i) Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Vikram Detergent Limited 2001 (127) ELT 641 (SC);
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise , New Delhi vs. Hindustan Lever Limited 2001 (130) ELT 721 (SC).
Lastly, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wearwell Tyres & Tubes Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal 2010 (257) ELT 126 (Tri.-Del.)
4. On the other hand, the learned DR reiterated the impugned orders and submitted that the appellants are not entitled for deduction on account of local cheque discounting charges as they affect the assessable value having interest factor, which has to be included in the assessable value.
5. Heard both sides.
6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides we find that the issue involved in this case is whether the appellants are entitled for deduction on account of cheque discounting charges (local) or not? We find that that in a series of decisions of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, it has been held that prior to the period 01/07/2000, the assessee is entitled for deduction on account of bank charges. When deduction on account of bank charges are available therefore whether the charges are for local cheque discounting or outstation, does not make any difference.
7. Therefore, following the case law cited by the learned advocate hereinabove, we hold that the appellants are entitled for deduction on account of cheque discounting charges from the assessable value. Therefore, we modify the impugned orders to that extent. The appeals are allowed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) */as ??
??
??
??
5 5