Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs Ama Industries Ltd on 9 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Appeal No. E/2962/04
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RK/166/NGP-II/2004 dated 30.06.2004 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central (Appeals), Nagpur.)
For approval and signature
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, 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 : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur
Appellant
(Represented by: Mr. K.S. Mishra, Additional Commissioner (A.R))
Vs
AMA Industries Ltd
Respondent
(Represented by: None) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 09.07.2012 Date of Decision: 09.07.2012 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard the learned Additional Commissioner (A.R), as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Mining Explosives and explosive products. The respondents claimed deduction of the freight from the assessable value of the goods. The dispute is from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2003. The adjudicating authority denied the deduction of freight and confirmed the demand on the ground that the freight is not separately shown in the excise invoices and the transportation charges are collected by the respondents under separate commercial invoices. The respondents neither submitted the invoices under the cover of which excisable goods were cleared, nor informed the Revenue about the freight charges so recovered.
3. On the appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the deduction in respect of freight from the assessable value is permissible.
4. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that as per the Boards Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 deduction towards cost of return fare if it is separately shown in the invoice and the recovery of the amount towards the cost of return fare of empty vehicle from the place of delivery is available as deduction. In the present case, as the respondents were seeking abatement of the freight of return travel of the empty truck also which is not admissible deduction, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
5. We find that the adjudicating authority held that in the excise invoice freight is not separately mentioned and the freight is collected through commercial invoices and the respondent has not submitted the excise invoices. In view of these facts, we find that the matter requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the Boards Circular dated 1.7.2002 and subsequent circulars. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the respondent.
6. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court.) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 3