Tribunal excludes excess transportation charges from assessable value, aligning with judicial discipline.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision excluding excess transportation charges from the assessable value. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that duty of excise is on manufacture, not dealer profit from transportation. The Tribunal affirmed that excess transportation charges need not be included in the assessable value, aligning with judicial discipline and previous court decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected Revenue's arguments, confirming the legality of the Commissioner (Appeals) orders and the exclusion of excess transportation charges from assessment.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether excess amount collected by the assessee from buyers as transportation charges should be added to the assessable value.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals and stay applications were filed by the Revenue against a common issue decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) Hyderabad, concerning the inclusion of excess transportation charges collected by the assessee in the assessable value. The assessee argued that the excess amount collected was based on agreed principles and unforeseen variables affecting actual transport costs. Reference was made to previous Supreme Court judgments where it was held that excess amounts in such situations were not includible in the assessable value.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue and found that the excess charges collected by the appellants were not required to be included in the assessable value. The Commissioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE, where it was held that the duty of excise is on manufacture, not on profit made by a dealer on transportation. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision in Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad supported this position. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s case, confirming that the excess collected amount need not be included in the assessable value.

3. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal's decisions were not in line with statutory provisions and sought a stay on the orders. They argued that other charges collected by the assessee should be part of transportation charges for valuation and assessment purposes. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent distinguished the situation, emphasizing the contract for transport charges and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supporting the exclusion of excess transportation charges from the assessable value.

4. Upon considering the arguments and records, the Tribunal found merit in the respondent's submissions. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been extensively examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases, including Baroda Electric Meters and Indian Oxygen Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the judicial discipline and upheld the decisions excluding excess transportation charges from the assessable value. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the stay applications and appeals, affirming the legality of the Commissioner (Appeals) orders.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the grounds raised in the appeals were not sustainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decisions aligned with the Supreme Court's judgments. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the precedent set by the Supreme Court and dismissed the appeals, confirming the exclusion of excess transportation charges from the assessable value.

---