2018 (11) TMI 682 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upheld Differential Duty Calculation on Railway Siding Transaction Value

The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty based on the transaction value at the railway siding and rejected the appeals on both the duty ... 100% EOU - Valuation - inclusion of loading charges recovered from the buyers in assessable value - Held that:- An identical issue for an earlier period has came up before the Tribunal in M/S MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LTD. VERSUS CCE, BHUBANESWAR [2017 (9) TMI 343 - CESTAT KOLKATA], where it was held that Since the transaction value is for delivery at the railway wagon, the duty is to be charged on the said transaction value at this point - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Appeals against Order-in-Appeal on differential duty calculation and Education Cess.Analysis:1. Issue of Differential Duty Calculation:The case involved appeals against the Order-in-Appeal regarding the demand for differential duty for the period August 2006 to June 2007. The dispute arose from whether loading charges recovered by the appellant from buyers should be included in the value of goods for charging duty. The Revenue contended that the place of removal of goods should be considered as the railway siding, and loading charges should be part of the duty calculation. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and relevant legal provisions, including Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Section 14 of the Customs Act. It concluded that duty payable by 100% EOU for DTA clearance should be assessed based on the transaction value at the place of sale. As the goods were to be delivered at the railway siding as per the contract, duty should be charged on the transaction value at that point. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.2. Issue of Education Cess Calculation:The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted relief in the calculation of Education Cess, following a clarification from the Ministry of Finance. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Education Cess calculation was incorrect. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the Education Cess calculation was appropriate. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on this issue. By following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the assessee was also rejected. Ultimately, the impugned order was sustained, and both appeals were disposed of accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty based on the transaction value at the railway siding and rejected the appeals on both the duty calculation and Education Cess issues. The legal analysis focused on interpreting relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act to determine the appropriate valuation for duty calculation in the context of goods clearance by a 100% EOU to DTA.