TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KARKARIA LTD. [ 1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT] , and SURYA CONDUCTORS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [ 1999 (5) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] . In the case of Surya Conductor has been Affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS SURYA CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. [ 1999 (10) TMI 750 - SC ORDER] It is held that the duty paid on input which is file as a Cenvat Credit is not to be considered while arriving at a cost of such inputs. Therefore, the appeal is legally wrong on this count. Also, in this case the appellant has proved beyond the doubt at the strength of Chartered Accounting certificate and certificate from the Indian Railway that no incidence of duty has been passed on to buyers in the case (Indian Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be supplied to the appellant. 3. Prior to 1.03.2006, the RTMM was not liable to excise duty. However, thereafter, the product became chargeable to excise duty. The Indian Railway imported the components from Plasser Austria, and got cleared from custom on payment of proper duties including CVD and SAD. The Railway, who had imported the goods passed on the benefit of countervailing (CVD) and (SAD) to the appellant by making an endorsement in a latter attached to bill of entry. As per the agreement, the appellant were required to discharge duty on entire RTMM by considering the value of imported components plus customs duties and value of indigenous manufactured goods excluding Cenvat on its inputs. Accordingly, the appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that in terms of section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1994 ( hereinafter referred to as Excise Act) read with section 4 (3)(d) of Excise Act, the assessable value of the final product is the transaction value which is defined has price actually paid or payable for the goods, which means price paid or agreed to be paid by the buyer of the goods. After the withdrawal of exemption on RTMMs, the Indian Railway, with an intention to get the benefit of Cenvat Credit borne on inputs amended the contract. In such a scenario, the price was beyond to the price said to the extent of Cenvat Credit availed on input by the appellant. Thus, the assessable value on which excise duty paid by the appellant was not the price actually paid by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person and for which reliance is placed on the following decisions: . Eveready Industries India vs. CCE, lucknow- 2015 (323) ELT 612 (Tri. Del.) [Affirmed by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow vs Eveready Industries India Ltd., 2017 (357) E.L.T. 11 (All.)] . Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus. Vs. Manisha Pharmoplast Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (222) E.L.T. 511 (Guj.) . Denso Faridabad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva 2014 (310) ELT 602 (Tri.- Mumbai) 4.4 In view of aforesaid submissions Ld. Advocate prays for setting aside for impugned order and allowing of the appeal. 4.5 Ld. Authorised representative on behalf of Revenue however, support the impugned order. 4.6 We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
