Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (5) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Alleged clandestine removal of goods and inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value.
Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods: The appeal involved two issues - one concerning the alleged clandestine removal of goods and the other regarding the inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value. The appellants, engaged in filling cylinders with gases, faced allegations of clandestine removal due to discrepancies in invoices following a sudden regulatory change. The department alleged that the appellants cleared goods using old invoices before obtaining new Excise registration, leading to suspicion of clandestine removal. However, the Tribunal noted that apart from the resumed invoices, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The Commissioner acknowledged the confusion but not ill intent in the appellants' actions. The appellants argued that their activity did not amount to manufacture, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case. They contended that excise duty was already paid on actual cleared quantities and disputed the demand for goods not cleared. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the appellants rectified the invoice mistake promptly and did not engage in clandestine activities. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order. Inclusion of Freight and Insurance Charges: Regarding the inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value, the Tribunal referenced Supreme Court decisions in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the inclusion of such charges in the assessable value was not warranted, aligning with established legal precedents. The appellants successfully argued against the inclusion of these charges, benefiting from favorable legal interpretations. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, providing relief in this aspect as well. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and legal interpretations led to a favorable outcome for the appellants on both issues, emphasizing the importance of legal precedents and evidence in determining excise duty liabilities and assessable values.
|