TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed in our legal system, which would bind an authority or the Court by the decisions of the coordinate Benches or of superior Courts. Time and again, this Court has held that the departmental authorities would be bound by the judicial pronouncements of the statutory Tribunals. Even if the decision of the Tribunal in the present case was not carried further in appeal on account of low tax effect, it was not open for the adjudicating authority to ignore the ratio of such decision. It only means that the Department does not consciously agree to the view point expressed by the Tribunal and in a given case, may even carry the matter further. However, as long as a judgment of the Tribunal stands, it would bind every Bench of the Tribunal of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirming demand of central excise duty of ₹ 1.37 lac (rounded off) with interest and matching amount of penalty. Though this order is appealable, we had entertained the writ petition on the premise that identical issue has already been decided by the CESTAT in favour of the petitioner, despite which the adjudicating authority had once again given a decision against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner manufactures and supplies submersible pumps to the Government agencies. The contracts envisage pre-delivery inspection charges by third party agency at the cost of the buyer. However, initially, the is payment would be made by the petitioner and reimbursement claimed from the Government. The contest between the petitioner and the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the respondent is required to be allowed. 3. When such a question again arose, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice against the petitioner why the pre-delivery inspection charges should not be included in the assessable value and resultantly unpaid dues of ₹ 1.37 lacs not be recovered. The petitioner opposed such proposals and relied heavily on the decision of the Tribunal in its own case. The Assistant Commissioner, however, by the impugned order confirmed the duty demand with interest and penalty. In such order, the Assistant Commissioner relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Tamil Nadu Vs. Southern Structures Ltd ., reported in 2008 (229) ELT, page No.487 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from customers in the name of such costs should undoubtedly be part of transaction value and should form basis for calculation of assessable value. x). I find that the aforementioned decision in the matter of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Clarifies to this effect in abundant. I find that the Larger Bench in this landmark judgment has observed that the transaction value does not merely include the amount paid to the assessee towards price but also includes any amount a buyer is liable to pay by reason of or in connection with the sale of the goods and Measure of levying is expanded and its composition is broad based to bring all that a buyer is liable to pay or incur by reason of sale or in connection on therewith . 4. Learned Counsel Shri Dav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior Courts. Time and again, this Court has held that the departmental authorities would be bound by the judicial pronouncements of the statutory Tribunals. Even if the decision of the Tribunal in the present case was not carried further in appeal on account of low tax effect, it was not open for the adjudicating authority to ignore the ratio of such decision. It only means that the Department does not consciously agree to the view point expressed by the Tribunal and in a given case, may even carry the matter further. However, as long as a judgment of the Tribunal stands, it would bind every Bench of the Tribunal of equal strength and the departmental authorities taking up such an issue. An order that the adjudicating authority may pass is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an order, if otherwise permissible in law. Impugned order dated 16.10.2015 is set aside. Ordinarily, in view of the above discussion, we would have allowed the Assistant Commissioner to pass a fresh order, leaving it open to the Department to take its options thereafter. However, the amount involved is not substantial. In any case, it is below the minimum tax effect prescribed by the Department in its latest circular enabling the Department to prefer appeal to the Tribunal and the High Court. Additionally, we are informed that in case of other assessees, similar issues have been dropped at the show cause notice itself within the same Commissionerate. 7. Under the circumstances, petition is disposed of in above terms. We make it clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
