Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1302 - CESTAT MUMBAIDemand of differential duty - Revenue was of the view that the appellant was liable to discharge excise duty liability on freight charges borne by NTPCL in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Tariff Rules, 2000, inasmuch as in the relevant invoices, the appellant did not indicate the freight charges separately and also what was permissible to be deducted was only the actual cost of transportation and not equalized freight @ ₹ 600/- per MT - Held that:- The primary condition for invoking Rule 5 is that the excisable goods should be sold. In the present case, the transaction is one of job work and there is no sale of goods involved of the material supplied by the NTPCL. The appellant has undertaken certain processes and returned the goods to NTPCL after collecting their conversion charges. The invoice raised clearly shows that no sales tax has been paid in these transactions. In other words, there is no sale transaction involved. Therefore, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that Rule 5 cannot be invoked ab initio is correct. In any case, the appellant has discharged excise duty liability on a price which is equal to or higher than that arrived under the Ujagar Prints formula and this is not disputed. If that be so, the appellant has discharged the duty liability correctly. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|