Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd on 4 April, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
APPEAL NO.E/1383/03
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.SDK(14)14/MV/2003 dtd. 31.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai )
For approval and signature:
Honble Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
And
Honble A.K.Srivastava, 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 :
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.V :
Appellant VS M/s. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Respondent Appearance Shri S.N.Prasad, SDR for Appellant Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the respondents CORAM:
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President And Mr.A.K.Srivastava, Member(Technical) Date of decision 4/4/08 ORDER NO.
Per : Jyoti Balasundaram In this appeal, the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) by which he has set aside the duty demand of Rs. 5,89,393/- confirmed as a result of inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value of goods, such as Power Line Carrier Communication Systems, Alfa Energy Meters, Transducers etc. manufactured and cleared by the assesses/respondents to State Electricity Boards, Tata Power Co. etc. following the Apex Court decision in Escorts JCB Ltd. [2002(146)ELT 31] and also set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of the same assesses, the Tribunal had set aside the demand confirmed on the same ground for different period relying upon the Apex Court decision cited supra, as seen from 2003(153)ELT 557. This decision has been subsequently followed, once again in the case of the same assesses as seen from 2003(159)ELT 869. The fact that the transfer of title of the goods manufactured by the respondents to their customers took place at the factory gate weighed with the Tribunal for holding that freight and insurance charges are not required to be included in the assessable value of their final products. Therefore, the distinction sought to be made by the ld.SDR that in the case of the present assesses the delivery was at factory gate while in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. the delivery was Ex-works, loses significance. Following the ratio of the Apex Court decision in Escorts JCB and Tribunals earlier orders in the assesses own case cited supra, we uphold the finding of the lower Appellate Authority and reject the appeal.
A.K.Srivastava Member(Technical) Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram Vice President pv 2