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>Exclusion of Freight Charges from Assessable Value for Excise Duty</h1> <h3>Messrs Mira Industries Versus C.C.E. -Ahmedabad-ii</h3> Messrs Mira Industries Versus C.C.E. -Ahmedabad-ii - TMI Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are whether the freight and handling charges collected by the appellant from customers should be included in the assessable value of excisable goods for the purpose of Central Excise Duty.Detailed Summary:Issue 1: Inclusion of Freight and Handling Charges in Assessable ValueThe appellant, engaged in manufacturing Power Driven Pumps (PD Pumps), collected freight and handling charges from customers but did not include these charges in the assessable value of excisable goods cleared. The department issued show cause notices proposing recovery of Central Excise Duty on these charges. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the recovery was for freight and handling services, not part of the goods' value. They contended that there was no evidence to support the inclusion of these charges in the assessable value. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their case.Issue 2: Evidence and Jurisdiction of AuthoritiesThe appellant argued that the show cause notices referred to Section 4 of the Act but lacked evidence to prove that the charges were part of the goods' price. They highlighted the absence of proof that the appellant did not provide services like forwarding or handling of goods. The appellant contended that the authorities could not conclude that these charges were part of the assessable value without sufficient evidence.Issue 3: Judicial Precedents and Legal PositionThe appellant cited several judgments to support their argument that charges shown separately as freight in invoices should not be included in the assessable value. They emphasized that activities like freight and handling are not part of assessable value. The appellant's counsel presented legal precedents to establish that such charges should not be subject to excise duty.Issue 4: Bench's DecisionAfter considering submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Bench concluded that the charges for freight and handling, shown separately in the invoices, should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Bench noted that the duty had been discharged based on transaction value during the disputed period. Citing legal precedents, the Bench held that these charges were not additional consideration but specific costs for freight and handling. The judgment referenced previous cases where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellant.Conclusion:The Bench set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment emphasized that charges for freight and handling, when separately shown in invoices, should not be included in the assessable value of excisable goods, leading to the duty demand on these elements being deemed unsustainable.(Pronounced in the open court on 10.04.2023)
TaxTMI 