TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/655/2006 and E/233/2008 - Final Order No. 40965-40966/2017 - Dated:- 14-6-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the appellant Shri K. Mani, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per : Bench The issue involved in both the appeals being connected, they were heard together and disposed by this common order. The parties are hereinafter referred as assessee and department for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Flourescent tube lights (FTL) and General Lighting Services (GLS) and were selling their goods through their depot network establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17.02.2006. Pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as stated above setting aside the duty demand, the assessee filed refund claim of pre-deposit of ₹ 5,00,000/-. The original authority though sanctioned the refund of ₹ 5,00,000/-, adjusted/appropriated the refund amount towards other liabilities/Govt. dues to the tune of ₹ 8,75,460/- and held that a balance of Govt. dues of ₹ 3,75,460/- remains to be recovered from the assessee. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee has filed appeal No.E/233/2008. 4. On behalf of the department, Ld. AR, Shri R. Subramaniam, AC, reiterated the grounds of appeal in E/655/2006. He contended that additional consideration collected by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id @ 5% on such service charges by raising debit notes. That these services were provided by the assessee apart from the manufacture and sale of goods at the factory gate and therefore is not includable in the assessable value. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment in the case of Raghavendra Pre-Stress Products (P) Ltd Vs. CCE, Tirupati 2006-TIOL-380-CESTAT-Bang. And A. Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2004 (167) ELT 369 (S.C). WE find that in the instant case the place of removal being the factory and the sale to AEEL on principal to principal basis, the service of storing as well as dispatching is only an additional service provided by the assessee separately. Such service charges are in different form of expenses and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
