TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayable on refundable security deposit received from the 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 clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....differential duty on security deposit of die development charges. He submits that the impugned order fails to consider the 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 submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involved in the appeals are issues of interpretation of law moreover, the issue in the present case is covered by the various above cited judgments. He submits that it has been the consistent view of the CESTAT that where the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of die development charges and not returned which will amount to recovery of the price of the die development, in such case the amortized cost of die development charges should be included in the assessable value of the 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 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. This issue has also been considered by this tribunal in the case of Neha Powerlines Pvt. Ltd.- 2009 (245) E.L.T. 816 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein, the Apex Court judgment in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd.- 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 rece....