Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Ginni International Ltd on 5 March, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2371 of 2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 93(MPM) CE/JPR I/2005 dated 20.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals I), Central Excise, Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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?
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 of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental authorities?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants Jaipur I
Vs.
M/s. Ginni International Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S. R. Meena & Shri Sunil Kumar, DR for the Appellants
Shri Rishikesh, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/decision : 5.3.2011
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. The issue required to be considered is as to whether the Textile Committee Cess recovered by the respondents from their clients in respect of clearances made in DTA is required to be added in the assessable value or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that though the said TC Cess was being retained by the appellants, inasmuch as the dispute about the leviability of the same before the textile Tribunal was pending, but the same cannot be considered to be a extra consideration for sale of the goods so as to justify the inclusion of the same in the assessable value of the final product.
2. After hearing both the sides, we find that identical dispute in respect of the same parties stand decided by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 723/09-EX dated 1.9.2009 vide which the matter was remanded to the lower authorities for fresh decision in the light of the observations made therein. As such, both sides agree that the matter needs to be remanded.
3. We order accordingly. The adjudicating authority would decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the earlier order of the Tribunal between the same parties.
(Pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
2