2017 (7) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Amendment of Cause Title and Jurisdiction, Freight Duty Issue Addressed, Previous Decision Relied On

M/s. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai

The Tribunal allowed the amendment of cause title and jurisdiction, addressed the common issue of duty on freight, and relied on a previous favorable ... Valuation - freight incurred for removal of goods from the factory gate to the consignment agent - includibility - Held that: - in the appellant's own case the Tribunal vide Final Order No./ 41763-41766/2015 dated 6.7.2015, the Tribunal held that There is no flow back of the freight aspect proved by Revenue showing that the same has come to the manufacturer in disguise. That not being the case, assessable value declared by the appellant remains untouched - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Amendment of cause title and address jurisdiction in appeal, common issue in multiple appeals, demand of duty on freight incurred for removal of goods, reliance on previous Tribunal decision.Amendment of Cause Title and Address Jurisdiction:The department filed a miscellaneous application seeking to amend the cause title and address jurisdiction in the appeal, as the department's jurisdiction had changed. The bench allowed the amendment, directing the registry to list multiple appeals for regular hearing with the amended details. The amended address was to be noted in the EA-3 Form.Common Issue in Multiple Appeals:The appeals involved the demand of duty on freight incurred for the removal of goods from the factory gate to the consignment agent. The appellants, manufacturers of MS Billets and TMT Bars, cleared goods to consignment agents on a stock transfer basis. The demand for duty was proposed in a show cause notice and confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in all three appeals. The appeals were taken up together for common disposal due to the common issue.Demand of Duty on Freight Incurred:The demand for duty on freight incurred for the removal of goods was contested by the appellants. The consultant for the appellants relied on a previous Tribunal decision in the appellants' own case, which was in their favor. The Tribunal had analyzed the issue in the previous case and found that there was no flow back of the freight to the manufacturer, making the demands unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief if any.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the amendment of the cause title and address jurisdiction in the appeal, considered the common issue of duty on freight incurred in multiple appeals, and relied on a previous Tribunal decision to set aside the demands for duty based on the lack of evidence of the freight benefiting the manufacturer.