9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Inclusion of cost of transportation from factory to depot in assessable value of goods.
Summary: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the question of whether the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot should be included in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellant. The appellant cleared the goods to the depot from where they were sold, and the issue pertained to clearances between October 2000 to December 2001. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to include the cost of transportation to the depot in the assessable value, considering the depot as the place of removal. The appellant's representative argued that after an amendment to Section 4 of the Act in July 2000, a depot was no longer considered a place of removal. According to Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery should be excluded from the assessable value if it is separately charged to the buyer and shown in the invoice. The appellant contended that the cost of transport was separately shown in the invoice and charged to the buyer. On the other hand, the departmental representative relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. CCE, where the cost of transport to the depot was held includible in the assessable value. However, it was noted that this judgment was based on a concession made by the appellant's counsel and was applicable to a period before the 2000 amendment. The appellant argued that post-amendment, the cost of transport should not be included, and Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules should apply for sales made from a depot. The Tribunal found that the Supreme Court judgment in Prabhat Zarda was not applicable to post-amendment scenarios, and the circular issued by the government clarified that the cost of transport should not be included in such cases. Citing the judgment in Dhiren Chemicals v. CCE, the Tribunal held that the circular would bind the department, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
|
