2023 (7) TMI 1111 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal excludes excess freight from excise duty value, citing legal precedents and Supreme Court ruling.

Kashyap Sweetners Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vapi And Jitendra Pandey Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vapi

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the excess freight collected from customers should not be included in the transaction value for ... Valuation of Excise Duty - inclusion of excess amount collected from the customers over and above the actual freight in the assessable value/ transaction value - HELD THAT:- As held in BARODA ELECTRIC METERS LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1997 (7) TMI 126 - SC ORDER] that excess amount of freight from the customer is profit on account of transportation and not part and parcel of the value of the goods therefore, same cannot be included in the assessable value. It is observed that this judgment was given with reference to un-amended Section 4 and Rules made thereunder prior to 01.07.2000. However, in the identical case for the period post 01.07.2000, in various judgments a view was taken that the Baroda Electric Meters prevails even after amended Section 4 and Rules made thereunder after 01.07.2000. Thus, excess freight collected by the appellant from the customers shall not be included in the transaction value for charging excise duty - the impugned orders are set-aside - appeal allowed. Issues involved: The issue involved in the present case is whether the excess amount collected from customers over the actual freight is liable to be added in the assessable value/transaction value for charging excise duty or not.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Inclusion of freight in transaction value The appellant argued that the entire freight is not includable in the transaction value. They cited various judgments in support of their claim, including M/S Ispat Industries Limited, GP Petroleums Limited, Emco Limited, Miraj Pipes & Fittings Pvt. Ltd., and others. The appellant further contended that even if freight is includable, the excess collected over the actual freight is a profit on transportation and should not be part of the transaction value. They relied on cases such as Baroda Electric Meters, Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Limited, Jost's Engineering Co. Limited, and others. The appellant also highlighted that the issue had been decided in their favor in a previous case, which had not been reviewed by the department, thus attaining finality.Issue 2: Treatment of excess/short recovery of freight The appellant presented a case where they had paid excess freight but collected lesser amounts from customers, resulting in a net difference. They argued that the demand should be based on the net excess/short recovery of freight. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not consider these transactions. The appellant emphasized that the overall demand should be calculated on the net difference of excess freight and lesser freight collected from customers.Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Supreme Court ruling The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Baroda Electric Meters, which stated that excess freight collected from customers is considered profit on transportation and should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that this ruling was applicable even after amendments to Section 4 and related rules post 01.07.2000. Based on various judgments cited by the appellant, the excess freight collected was deemed not includable in the transaction value for charging excise duty. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the excess freight collected from customers should not be included in the transaction value for charging excise duty. The judgment was based on legal precedents and the Supreme Court ruling in Baroda Electric Meters, which established that such excess amounts are profit on transportation and not part of the value of goods. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.