Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of C.Ex., Coimbatore vs G.E.C. Alsthom India Ltd., Premier ... on 1 June, 2001
ORDER
Shri Jeet Ram Kait
1. All these Revenue appels pertain to a common issue and hence they are taken up for disposal as per law. Notices were issued to all the respondents and it has been served on them and they have not respondent to for the hearing except in respect of M/s.Sree Andal & CO. in which Shri J.Narayanswamy, Ld.Counsel has appeared. As the issue is a covered one, the request made by in two cases for adjournment is rejected and appeals taken up for hearing.
2. Ld.Counsel at the outset submits that the issue is covered in assessee's favour and the Commissioner has given a detailed finding holding that there is no evidence on record to show that the deposits which they have received from various persons have influenced the price. It is contended by him that deposits are independent of the price in all the matters and they are all connected with the appeals which can be disposed of.
3. Ld.SDR, Shri G.S.Menon, Ld.DRs Shri S.Kannan, S.Arumugam appeared for the Revenue in these batch of appeals and submitted that all these cases may be remanded back for examining whether the value has depressed because of accepting the deposits on which there would have been national interest.
4. Ld.Counsel invited our attention to paras-3 & 4 of the Order-in-appeal which are extracted herein below :-
"3. In the grounds of appeals filed by the appellants which are more or less similar, it has been claimed that the raw materials required for the manufacturing activities are being purchased generally and store before purchase orders are received except for a few items of specific nature and that it is from this bulk stock that the appellants draw the materials for the manufacturing activity and that the purchases have not been made exclusively out of the advances received from the customers. Most of the appellants have categorically stated that they do not receive advance deposits from all the customers and that the quantum of advance is very low compared to the turn over of the company and that the price is uniform and does not very for a particular item whether the customer pays advance or not and that once the prices are agreed to as per the contract the appellants are obliged to supply the goods at the same price even if the costs of raw materials vary. It has also been argued that the earnest deposit received was purely to ensure the contractual binding as per the Trade practice since the goods are tailor made the are not of the type which are mass-produced and delivered of the shelf and the amount of advance received is not taken into account while arriving at the contract price; therefore the question of the interest free advance influencing the price did not arise; Further such a concept had not been in their minds or the customers.
4. In the light of the above, I have no reason to change my views taken in the earlier orders in appeal referred supra. I therefore hold that the Assistant Commissioner's orders here cannot be sustained in law in the absence of any evidence brought on record to show that the advances taken by the appellants had in fact depressed the price or that the appellants had derived benefit by receipt of such advance, particularly in the absence of quantification thereof. The impugned orders do not survive in law in the light of the judicial pronouncements as above the demands confirmed have to be set aside."
5. Ld.Counsel has also relied on Tribunal judgement in the matter of FORT WILLIAM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs CCE Calcutta-IV as reported in 2000 (122) ELT 174(T); CCE New Delhi Vs SCHENCK AVERY LTD reported in 2000 (119) ELT 582 (T); ACC MACHINERY COMPANY LTD Vs CCE, MUMBAI VI as reported in 2000 (117) ELT 231 (T) and CCE Coimbatore Vs FESTO ELGI PVT.LTD reported in 1998 (100) ELT 175 (T) and this Tribunal final order No.737 to 761/2001 dated 24.5.01 arising from the same impugned order which was considered by the Tribunal and the Revenue appeals were rejected therein.
6. Ld.Counsel has stated that whether they have taken advance or not, they have charged the same price from each customer and the advance has not depressed the price to any extent and therefore the national interest is not includible in the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld.SDR & DRs who appeared for the Revenue and the Ld.Counsel Shri J.Narayanswamy who appeared for the respondent, namely M/s.Sree Andal & Co. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly examined this matter and has given his detailed findings in paras-3 & 4 of his order which have been extracted supra and therefore respectfully following the various Tribunal's judgements, cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is confirmed and appeals filed by the department are dismissed. We also note that by Final Order No.737 to 761/01 dated 24.5.01 in the case of CCE Vs UNIVERSAL HEAT EXCHANGES LTD & OTHERS the impugned order has already been set aside by following the ratio of the above cases. Thus, the Revenue appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open court)