Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Universal Luggage Mfrg Co. Ltd on 23 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/167, 231/04
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/233-234/03 dated 05.08.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur
Appellant
Vs.
Universal Luggage Mfrg Co. Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.K. Singh, SDR for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 23.08.2011 Date of decision : 23.08.2011 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/233-234/03 dated 05.08.2003.
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) are manufacturers of plastic moulded luggage goods falling under Chapter 42 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They are marketing the goods through their depots situated all over India. They were issued show-cause notices proposing the inclusion of freight charge recovered by them at the rate of 3.25% of the depot price in the transaction value of the goods. Asst. Commissioner vide his order in original no. CEX/61/STR/2002 dated 30.10.2002 confirmed two show-cause notices for Rs.2,50,031/- and Rs.5,79,909/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent along with recovery of interest on the duty amount. Against the Order in Original, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order allowed the appeal setting aside the Order in Original. The revenue has come in appeal against the impugned order before this Tribunal.
3. Ld. SDR appearing for the revenue stated that in this case the issue involved is regarding inclusion of equalised freight in the transaction value for the period May 2001 to June 2001 and July 2001 to March 2002. He submitted that issue has already been settled by this Tribunal vide order no. A/465-474/11/EB/C-II dated 16.6.2011 in case of CCE Nashik vs. VIP Industries. Tribunal vide this order has held that with effect from 1.7.2000 when the provisions of new Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 came into force, no exclusion of equalised freight is permissible and duty is liable to be paid on the value inclusive of cost of transaction from factory to depot. He therefore, submitted that Order-in-Appeal may be set aside and the Order in Original restored.
4. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice.
5. After going through the case papers we find that issue is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal in case of CCE vs. VIP Industries (supra) under which it has been held that equalised freight is required to be added in the transaction value for the period from 1.7.2000 onwards. We find in this case show-cause notice issued for the period 2001. Therefore the duty is required to be paid on the value inclusive of the equalised freight. We therefore set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restore the Order in Original. Appeals are allowed.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) (Sahab Singh) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) SR 3