2017 (2) TMI 757 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Allowed: Tribunal Deems Duty Demand Unjustified, Influenced by Precedent

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, as the Tribunal deemed the duty demand confirmation unjustified based on a subsequent circular ... Valuation - transportation expenses - whether the amount recovered from the buyer towards the cost of return fare of the empty vehicle from the place of delivery will not be available for deduction for the purpose of determination of the duty liability? - Held that: - the C.B.E. & C. has issued the Circular No. 923/13/2010-CX., dated 19-5-2010 in amending its earlier Circular dated 1st July, 2002, where, it has been clarified that cost of return fare of vehicle is not required to be added for determining the assessable value - demand not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Central Excise duty liability on transportation charges deduction.Analysis:The appeal was against an order confirming a duty liability of &8377; 3,22,962 on the appellant for receiving &8377; 39,57,903 from buyers for transportation of goods. The department contended that deduction was only allowable from the place of removal to the place of delivery, not for the return fare of empty vehicles. The department relied on Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. The Tribunal noted a subsequent Circular No. 923/13/2010-CX amending the earlier circular, clarifying that return fare need not be added to determine assessable value, citing the case of Haldia Petro-chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia. Relying on the Tribunal's decision and the amended circular, the duty demand confirmation was deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.