Cce, Jaipur vs M/S Rajasthan Textile Mills

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 80-85 (MPM) CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 31/03/2006 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :

the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :

the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for

publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :

copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :

Department Authorities?

CCE, Jaipur Appellant

Versus

M/s Rajasthan Textile Mills Respondent

Appearance

Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the appellant.

Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52973-52978/2015 Dated : 18/09/2015

Per. B. Ravichandran :-

These six appeals filed by the Revenue against the order dated 17/03/2006 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are being taken up together for disposal as the issue involved is the same. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of manmade yarn and cotton yarn liable to Central Excise duty. The respondent filed six refund claims on account of the freight charges paid by them on their final products being in excess of the amount paid to the transporter on equalized basis. The original duty payment was made under protest. The respondent based his claims on Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters vs. CCE reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 133 (S.C.). The claims were rejected by the Original Authority. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. In the appeal, the Revenue contended that the period involved was post 01/07/2000 and as such the decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable. Though the goods were sold at the factory gate they were delivered at customers destination, hence, in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the actual cost of transportation only shall be allowed for exclusion. Extra money collected in the name of transportation shall form part of consideration to be subjected to Central Excise duty. During the arguments, the learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondent stated that both show cause notice and the impugned order are clear on the factual position that they are clearing goods on sale on ex-mill basis. Since the sale and clearances are from factory gate, the provisions of Rule 5 has no application in their case.

2. We have beard both the sides and examined the appeal papers. In the appeal it is admitted that goods were sold at the factory gate. This factual position has been clearly brought out in the show cause notice, original proceedings and in the impugned order. That being the case the provisions of Rule 5 have no application and there is no justification for including the cost of transportation/insurance in the assessable value whether in actual or equated basis. We find such situation is true for the valuation provision effective from 01/07/200. The Revenue has not substantiated as to how the introduction of amended valuation provisions w.e.f. 01/07/2000 will have any impact on the above factual position. It is not shown that any money collected by the respondent over and above the value of goods as shown in their invoice is attributable to an additional consideration which escaped the assessment for Central Excise purpose. There is no allegation or evidence to that effect. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly arrived at the decision after examining the factual position. In view of the discussion above, we find no reason to interfere with the said impugned order. Accordingly, we reject the appeals filed by the Revenue.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

4