2011 (5) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Assessable value - Cylinder maintenance charges- The dispute relates to the period when old valuation provisions were in force. The amounts collected towards cylinder maintenance charges are not includible in the assessable value for the relevant period before the introduction of the new valuation provisions - The period of dispute in this case is January 1998 to June 2000. - As such the impugned Order-in-Appeal does not require interference - The Department s appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether amounts collected towards cylinder maintenance charges are includible in the assessable value for the relevant period before the introduction of new valuation provisions.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue based on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2000. The Tribunal in that case noted that the appellants collected charges from buyers without any relation to costs involved, even from buyers who did not avail of the service. However, in the present case, the respondents collected cylinder maintenance charges from all buyers, whether the gas was delivered in cylinders supplied by buyers or by the respondents. The respondents argued that they incurred maintenance expenses for all cylinders, as confirmed by the original authority. Although they collected a higher amount than the expenses, they claimed it was profit, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE Vs. Indian Oxygen Ltd. 1988. Additionally, they referred to several decisions supporting their claim that the collected amount should not be included in the assessable value.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and cited decisions, found that the present case differed from the Kota Oxygen case. They agreed with the respondents' position that the amounts collected for cylinder maintenance charges should not be included in the assessable value for the period before the new valuation provisions were introduced. The dispute period in this case was from January 1998 to June 2000. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Appeal, stating that no interference was necessary based on the legal interpretation provided and the specific circumstances of the case.