Appeal No. E/262/2008, (Arising out of OIA-KLG/209/SRT-II/07 dt 29/06/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) -SURAT-II). Case: Ms. Gandhilon Texturisers Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Surat-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case Number:Appeal No. E/262/2008, (Arising out of OIA-KLG/209/SRT-II/07 dt 29/06/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) -SURAT-II)
Party Name:Ms. Gandhilon Texturisers Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Surat-I
Counsel:For Applicants: Shri S R Dixit, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri S N Gohil, Authorised Representative
Judges:Dr D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Shri Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical)
Issue:Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Section 4
Judgement Date:May 19, 2017
Court:CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Shri Ashok K Arya, (West Zonal Bench)

  1. M/s Gandhilon Texturisers is in appeal against OIA-KLG/209/SRT-II/07 dt 29.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat II where under, inter alia, duty demand of RS 1,33,165/- has been confirmed.

  2. The brief facts are that:

    i) The appellant had collected/charged extra charges under the head of -- Permissible under Section 4-- Transportation, Octroi, and Packing charges from the customers.

    ii) The Dept allowed deduction of transportation and octroi actually paid and for other collections demanded Central Excise duty.

    iii) In this regard, show cause notice dt 12.4.2001 was issued to the appellant. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner vide order No 108/2005 dt 19.8.2005 confirming demand of Rs 1,33,165/-.

    iv) The Appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order confirmed the demand alongwith interest and dropped the penalty.

    v) The appellant is now before the Tribunal against the impugned order in appeal.

  3. With the background of above facts, we have heard both the sides represented by the Ld Counsels, Shri S R Dixit (Proxy Advocate) for the Appellant and Shri S N Gohil for the Revenue.

  4. After having carefully gone through the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides, it appears that the liability of duty against the appellant has rightly been confirmed on account of extra charges collected from the customers by the appellant.

    4.1 However, following the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CCE, New Dehi vs Maruti Udyog Ltd 2002(141)ELT.3(SC) the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of cum duty price for computation of liability of duty as there cannot be any further collection from the customer on account of the sale for which payments have already been realised by the assessee.

    4.2 In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd (supra) observes as under:

    -- 4. Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides for valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. Under Section 4(1), the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to the value which is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. Section 4(4)(d)(ii) states that value in relation to any excisable goods does not include...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL