Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 294 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - inclusion of differential amount - it is alleged that appellant had collected insurance premium from their customers which was more than the actual premium paid to the insurance company - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is in respect of addition of certain amounts to the assessable value determined in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UJAGAR PRINTS, ETC. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT], i.e. on the basis of cost of raw materials + job charges. Revenue has proceeded against the appellant without adducing any evidence to the effect that the transaction between the job worker and the merchant manufacturer was not on arm’s length. Without disputing the job charges, certain figures have been filled up from the accounts of the appellant under the head of ‘insurance premium’ collected from the customers and premium paid to the insurance company. It has not even been pointed out as to what was collected from a particular customer in this regard. Further, Revenue has not even disputed in the show cause notice that the job charges recovered by the appellant were suppressed in any manner for making the demand. In the case of BARODA ELECTRIC METERS LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1997 (7) TMI 126 - SC ORDER], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that It was clearly held in INDIAN OXYGEN LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CE. [1988 (7) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT], that the duty of excise is a tax on the manufacturer and not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. The decisions relied upon by the learned AR are distinguishable as in the case of PHARMASIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [2004 (7) TMI 170 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the issue was in regard to addition of amounts collected under the category of “other work overheads”, the fact which was admitted by the assessee in their statements. Hon’ble Supreme Court order is only limited to the issue of suppression etc. for invoking period of limitation. The appeal is allowed.
|