2025 (11) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore; since the facts are identical and the issue is common in all the Appeals, all the appeals are bunched together for common disposal. The details of OIOs/OIAs are given below : S. No. Appeal No. OIO No. OIA No. Remarks 1. E/41189/2016 5 & 6/2015 (ADC) dt. 31.03.2015 53/2016 dt. 16.03.2016 Demands dropped by OIO. Demand confirmed/penalty u/s 11AC dropped by OIA. 2. E/41576/2017 24/2016 (DC) dt. 28.06.2016 94/2017 dt. 12.04.2017 Demands with interest confirmed/penalty under Rule 25 of CER 2000 imposed by OIO which is upheld by OIA 3. E/42170/2017 42/2016 (DC) dt. 28.10.2016 170/2017 dt. 21.07.2017 Demands with interest confirmed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance of (i) Show Cause Notice (SCN) dt. 04/02/2014 and (ii) Statement of Demand (SOD) dt. 29.04.2014. It appears that the Appellant filed a detailed reply justifying the non-inclusion of the cost of transportation in the assessable value and it also appears from the record that the Appellant also filed supporting materials like working based on the actual figures in their books, filed CAS-5 statements wherein they had actually indicated the working of the total freight incurred and the average transportation cost therein, apart from Cost Accountant clarification indicating that the total quantity transported had been considered for the purpose of calculation of equalized freight. 3. In adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority having cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the demands with interest as proposed in the SCN/SODs and imposed penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those OIOs vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dt. 12.04.2017, 21.07.2017, 21.03.2018 & 12.09.2018 respectively. Hence Appeals viz. E/41576/2017, E/42170/2017, E/41574/2018 & E/42658/2018 have been filed by Appellant. 6. Heard Shri Thomas Tony, Ld. Chartered Accountant for the Appellant and Smt. O.M. Reena, Ld. Additional Commissioner for the Revenue; perused the documents placed on record including the orders of lower authorities; as we have noted that a common issue is involved in all these appeals, the only issue that arises for our consideration is, 'whether the impugned orders....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication issued by the Cost Accountant and is therefore very unfortunate that the Appellate Commissioner has not properly applied his mind before passing the impugned orders. 9. Firstly, the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baroda Electric Motor (supra) has clearly held that equalized freight charged from everyone is not includable in the assessable value as duty of excise is on manufacture and not on profit made on transportation and hence, it was incumbent on the Revenue in its Appeal before the First Appellate Authority to satisfy this condition, but unfortunately we do not find any whisper about the same. 10. Secondly, the Appellant has furnished three CAS-5 certificates which have not been found fault with by any of the lower a....