Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 440 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Show cause notice was issued alleging that as per the contract of the buyers, the transportation cost involved was Rs. 15,41,000/- whereas the respondents have actually paid to the transporters only Rs. 12,25,600/-. As a result, the assessee has recovered Rs. 3,15,400/-, in excess from the buyers towards transportation cost which should be treated as part of the price of the exempted product namely, the rectified spirit. Accordingly, and amount of Rs. 25,252/- was sought to be demanded on the allegation that the party have contravened the provisions of Section 3 and Section 9(1)(b)of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority dropped the proceedings initiated under notice. The order of the original authority was reviewed by the Commissioner and appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority thus rejecting the appeal of the Department. Held that - The ratio in determining the price by excluding the amount collected as freight as laid down in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Electric Meter v. Collector 2008 -TMI - 44608 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is certainly, applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below dropping the proceeding involving demand of Rs. 25,232/- in terms of show cause notice 23-9-05. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules for determining the amount payable in relation to exempted goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Facts and Background: The case involves an appeal by the Department against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of products manufactured by the respondent, including rectified spirit not subject to Central Excise duty. The dispute arose over the treatment of transportation costs in determining the total price of exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. Proceedings and Findings: The original authority dropped the proceedings initiated through a show cause notice, which was later reviewed by the Commissioner and appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, prompting the Department to appeal before the CESTAT. 3. Legal Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b): The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, which mandated the manufacturer to pay 8% of the total price of exempted goods charged at the time of clearance from the factory. The Department argued that excess freight should be included in the total price, contrary to the respondent's contention. 4. Judicial Analysis and Decision: The Member (T) analyzed the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) and emphasized that transportation costs incurred post-clearance from the factory should not be part of the total price calculation for exempted goods. The Member referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support the exclusion of profit made from such activities in determining the price of goods. 5. Application of Legal Precedent: The Department attempted to distinguish a previous Supreme Court decision related to valuation under Section 4 from the current matter under Rule 6(3)(b). However, the Member rejected this argument, asserting that the principles of excluding certain amounts from the price of goods were applicable in the present case as well. 6. Conclusion: Ultimately, the Member found no justification to interfere with the lower authorities' decision to drop the demand for payment based on the alleged excess freight collected by the respondents. Consequently, the appeal by the Department was rejected by the CESTAT. This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal nuances and reasoning behind the judgment rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case concerning the interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules for determining the amount payable in relation to exempted goods.
|