TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002. Accordingly, the show cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing demand of Central Excise Duty. The Adjudicating Authority vide Orders-In-Original dated 13.10.2017 confirmed the demand of all the show cause notices along with interest and imposition of penalty. Being aggrieved by the Orders- In-Original, the appellant filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected the appeals related to handling charges however, the duty demand related to pre delivery inspection charges was set aside. Accordingly, the appeals were partly allowed. Being aggrieved by the confirmation of demand in respect of handling charges in the impugned orders, the appellant filed the present appeals. 2. Shri Sudhanshu Bissa, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the handling charges is not includible in the assessable value as the same has been settled in various judgments including the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Accurate Meters Ltd - 2009 (235) ELT 581 (SC), Guwahati Carbon Ltd -2009 (243) ELT 307, West Coast Paper Mill Ltd - 2004 (172) ELT 496 wherein it was held that the transportation charges of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g separately the value for the freight and handling charges. 4.1 It is the case of the department that price of the goods so recovered should include elements of freight and handling charges which cannot be considered as transportation/handling cost but it is additional consideration. In this regard this Bench is of the view that during transportation of goods from the factory gate to the destination there can be certain charges incurred for handling of finished goods which the appellant has recovered only as cost of freight and handling. There is no evidence on record to show by the department that said charges are nothing but arrangement for reducing the assessable value of goods. In the absence of any such evidence it has to be held that the entire element of freight and handling charges shown separately in the invoices is nothing else but freight and handling charges. It is now a settled law as per the relied upon judgments cited supra by 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 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed the handling charges of 1% of the value as part of the transportation cost. Therefore, it is not includible in the assessable value. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 4.3 In the above judgments it is held that amount charged as freight & handling charges and separately shown in the invoices cannot be included in the assessable value u/s 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore being the same facts and issue involved in the present case also, the freight and handling charges shown separately in the invoice of the appellant is also not includable in the assessable value of the excisable goods, consequently, duty demand on the said elements is not sustainable. 05. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed." 4.1 in the case appellant's own case Lubi Submersibles Ltd. & Ors (Supra) this Tribunal has given the following findings:- "4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the limited issue to be decided is that whether the appellant charging equalized handling charges from their customers on excisable goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the factory-gate to the place of State Electricity Boards at the rates specified in the tender. In the said case the Apex Court held that the place of removal remains the factory-gate and the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery cannot be included in the assessable value even though the cost of transportation has been calculated on average basis and not on actual basis. The ratio of the said judgment apply squarely to the facts of the present case. 5.2 Similarly, this Tribunal in the case of Majestic Auto v. CCE cited supra, had held that the equalised cost of freight shown separately in the invoices cannot be included in the assessable value even after 1-7-2000 when the place of removal remains the factory-gate." 4.2 We also find that in the matter of Lamina Suspension Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Mangalore - 2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 296 (Tri. - Bang....