Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Mumbai Iii vs Emerson Network Power (I) Ltd on 26 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/936, 937/05 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR/MIII/145-146/2004 dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),, Mumbai.
For approval and signature:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri. P.K.Jain, 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 : Yes
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
CCE Mumbai III
:
Appellant
Versus
Emerson Network Power (I) Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Dewalwar, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) for appellant Shri Rajesh Ostwal, C.A. For Respondent CORAM:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.K.Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 26.12.2014 Date of Decision : 26.12.2014 ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR/MIII/145-146/2004 dated 22.12.2004.
2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are raising the same question and in respect of very same assessee, the appeals are disposed of by a common order.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding differential duty liability on the respondent on the ground that during the period 07/2000 to 03/2003 the respondent had collected additional amounts as transportation charges by raising various debit notes but not indicating the said amounts on the invoice. The adjudicating authority has held against the respondent and confirmed the demands with interest and imposed penalties. On an appeal the first appeal authority after considering the facts of the case has set aside the demands confirmed by relying upon various judgements of this Tribunal and also holding that the amounts collected were only transportation or freight charges.
4. The main ground of the Revenue in these appeals is that the provision of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, specifically indicates that the assessee has to show the cost of transportation separately on the invoice of the goods cleared in order to exclude the same from assessable value. On a specific question from the Bench it was stated that there is nothing on the records to show that the amounts collected were not freight charges but something else. On perusal of the records it also transpires that the respondent had collected only an amount which is freight paid by them to the transporters and raised a debit note separately. We find strong force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel that the issue is now covered by various decisions and recent being CCE vs. Garware Enterprises Ltd. 2014 (301) ELT 349 ((Tri. Mum). We find it so. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Garware Enterprises Ltd. (supra). In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is correct and do not suffer from any infirmity.
5. Appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated in open Court) (P.K.Jain) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3