TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri Harakamal Chakraborty, Dy. General Manager (Finance Accounts), for the Appellant. Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Shri Harakamal Chakraborty, learned Deputy Manager (Finance and Accounts) of the Appellant-Company states that the impugned goods namely, Butadiene is notified as explosive and hence, it goes in special tankers, as required under the SMPV Rules, from the Appellants' refinery to the customers' premises and hence, necessarily such tankers have to return empty. He states that these tankers are specially constructed and they cannot be used for carrying other goods. In view of this peculiar nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in force to come to a decision in a given case. This is the minimum requirement for an official acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and adjudicating a case under the Customs, Excise or Service Tax law. If he blindly follows a Circular of the Board without applying his own mind, then such an Order cannot be called his Order. It defies all logic that for Central Excise purposes, the freight for carrying the empty container back is held to be part of the assessable value of the manufactured goods, whereas the outward freight for carrying goods is not considered to be part of the assessable value. In this particular case, the invoice clearly shows the price at which the impugned goods are sold at the factory gate and the freight has been indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCW Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 541 (Mad.), which held as follows :- "3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we note that the appellant relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Associated Drug Company v. CCE, Bangalore [2005 (191) E.L.T. 168 (Tri.-Bang)], while the respondent relies on the Board's Circular No. 827/4/2006-CX, dt. 12-4-2006. In the above case cited by the appellant's counsel, it was held that, as duty of excise was a levy on manufacture, charges incurred in the transportation of the excisable goods from the factory gate, the point of sale, were not to be included in the assessable value of the goods and that, in such a case, there was no need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Kolkata-IV - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Kolkata), that "........ A particular arrangement for safe delivery of goods cannot be cause for burdening such goods with extra excise duty liability by adding transport charges and insurance charges to the assessable value............. "and that "......... Any contrary interpretation of the legal provisions requiring inclusion of the cost of transportation and insurance charges in the assessable value would be ultra vires the constitutional mandate for levy of excise duty..........." 7. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the Appeal. (Operative part of the Order pronounced in the court on 16-12-08) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
