2023 (4) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment that appellant had collected freight and handling charges of Rs. 20,37,289/- and Rs. 44,01,058/- respectively @ 0.5% on assessable value, from their customers for the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11 and April 2011 to February 2012 respectively and had not included the above said charges in the assessable value of excisable goods cleared on payment of duty. Therefore the appellant were issued two show cause notices dated 30.03.2012 and 22.03.2012 proposing recovery of Central Excise Duty on freight and handling charges recovered from their customers as they were forming part of assessable value of excisable goods cleared by them from their factory premises. In adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... customers; and the confirmation of demand of excise duty of these recoveries without any proof, evidence or basis that the appellant has depressed the real value of the excisable goods and a part of the transaction value was actually recovered in guise of freight and handling charges, is unsustainable. 2.1 He further submits that the facts of this case show that show cause notice were issued to appellant and it was also clear from the show cause notices that excise duty was proposed to be recovered on this recovery only with reference to section 4 of the Act and the explanation thereunder defining the term "transaction value" but no evidence at all was brought on record even at the time of issuing the show cause notice to suggest that 0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DUSTRIES LTD. - 2015(319)ELT 221 (SC) TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS LTD. VS. CCE, BANAGLORE -2007(217)ELT 104 (TRI. CHENNAI) TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS LTD. VS. COMMR. - 2016(331) ELT A137(SC) STOVE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CCE, AHD-I- 2016(344)ELT 1035 (TRI.- AHMD.) CCE, CHENNAI -I VS. KALPANA LAMPS AND COMPONENT -2017(7)GSTL 100 (TIR- CHENNAI ) LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. CCE, BANGALORE - 2018(17)GSTL 296(TRI. BANG.) FINAL ORDER NO. A/10836/2019 DATED 29.04.2019. 03. On the other hand, Shri Vijay G. Iyengar, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 04. We have carefully considered the submission made by b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Learned Counsel that any amount collected separately as freight in the invoices cannot be included in the assessable. CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ram Krishna Electrical Pvt. Ltd.2011 (272) E.L.T. 149 (Tribunal) (supra) has also held as follows : - "5.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Accurate Meters Ltd. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 581 (S.C.) considered a similar situation wherein the goods were supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Boards and two separate contracts were entered into, one for sale of meters and another for transportation and transit insurance thereof. As per the terms of the contract, the assessee was bound to transport the goods from....