TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... customer on Die development charges for making die which is used in the manufacture of final product i.e. Aluminium Profiles supplied to the customer. (iii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on excess insurance charges collected from the customers of their final product. 02. Shri Mrugesh Pandya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal in respect of first issue on the ground that Notification No.50/2008-CE (N.T.) has only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. He further submits that the Order-in-Original rejecting the appeal on the ground that the excisable goods cleared to SEZ Developer cannot construe export under bond as per Cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that the die development charges were collected in the form of refundable security deposit that it is neither a ground for the security deposit and any nexus to the price of the finished goods. He submits that the differential duty amount of security deposit not refunded cannot be construed as part of the excisable goods under Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. He submits that the appellant has paid the amount of Rs.7,08,201/- against the security deposit which is received from the customer for die development charges. 2.2 As regard the demand on excess insurances charges collected, it is his submission that the goods have been sold at the factory gate at an agreed price and transfer of goods at the factory gate and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issues of interpretation of law is involved, the revenue cannot invoke larger period of limitation therefore, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable consequently, penalties are also not sustainable. 03. Shri Prabhat Rameshwaram, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 04. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. As regard first issue that whether the appellant is liable to pay 10% on the value of the goods supplied to SEZ in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the supplies made to SEZ is considered as export even as per the SEZ Act therefore even though by Notification No. 50/2008....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....final product i.e. Aluminium Product supplied by the appellant on payment of duty however, this aspect has not been examined by the adjudicating authority therefore, the issue of demand of duty on refundable security deposit for die development charges needs to be re-examined and re-considered on the basis of factual position that what treatment was given to such refundable security deposit in the appellant's books of account, accordingly, this issue is remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4.2 As regard the differential duty on excess insurance charges collected from the customers, we find that when the assessee charge an average amount of insurance charges in the invoice, it may be less or excess as compared to the actual insurance cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (SC) was relied upon. In this decision, the tribunal held as under:- A very short point is involved in the present appeal demand of duty of Rs. 26,676/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with the imposition of penalty of identical amount on the ground that during the period 1-8-2001 to 31-3-2005, they have received more insurance charges from their customers then the actual amount spent by them. As such the lower authorities have held that such excess receipt of amount is liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods. The demand stands confirmed by raising the show cause notice in terms of the proviso to Section 11A i.e. by invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. After hearing both th....