TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal excludes equalized premium from assessable value, citing legal precedents</h1> <h3>Balkrishna Paper Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I</h3> The Tribunal ruled that insurance charges calculated on equalized premium should not be included in the assessable value. Citing precedents like Baroda ... Valuation - inclusion of differential insurance charges - whether the differential insurance charges charged from the customers on the basis of equalized insurance premium is includible in the assessable value? - Held that: - the insurance charges collected from the Customer over and above the actual, on the basis of equalized insurance, shall not be includible in the assessable value - issue covered by the decision in the case of MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., PUNE-I [2009 (11) TMI 303 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that We do not think that the proposal to include the excess freight in the assessable value is corollary to exclusion of the actual cost of transportation from the assessable value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Whether differential insurance charges based on equalized premium are includible in the assessable value.Analysis:The issue in this case revolves around the inclusion of differential insurance charges, calculated on the basis of equalized insurance premium, in the assessable value. The appellant's counsel cited various judgments to support their argument, including cases like Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise and Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. The counsel argued that even after the introduction of new Section 4 and valuation rules post-2000, the differential insurance charges should not be considered in the assessable value. This position was supported by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I.On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, relied on the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III vs. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. to support their stance.After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal focused on the specific issue at hand. Referring to the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., the Tribunal confirmed that the principles established in that judgment remained applicable even after 1.7.2000. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that insurance charges collected from customers, over and above the actual charges, based on equalized insurance, should not be included in the assessable value. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the relevant case laws cited, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal based on established legal principles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
