Cce Vs. Associated Capsules (P) Ltd.

Cce vs Associated Capsules (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 26, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12475

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/12475
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: U Bhat, S T K.
Decided On: Dec 26, 1997
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Associated Capsules (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(75)LC109Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. we have heard shri m. ali, jdr for the appellant.2. respondent, engaged in the manufacture of empty gelatin capsules, was availing benefit of notification no. 120/75. subsequently, four show cause notices were issued stating that charges collected for forwarding and delivery had not been included in the invoice value and duty was payable thereon. on the respondent opposing the notices, the assistant collector dropped the demand. the department moved the collector (appeals) against this order. collector (appeals) held that deduction for forwarding and delivery charges could not be granted and actual freight charges had not been proved. he also accepted the contention raised on behalf of the respondent in the course of submissions that erection charges should be deducted from the value.this order is being challenged by the department. apparently, the respondent has not preferred an appeal against the order, nor has the respondent filed any cross-objections in this appeal.3. the only question for consideration is whether collector (appeals) was justified in holding that erection charges was a permissible deduction. this was not a matter raised in the show cause notices and not urged before the assistant collector. in these circumstances, the collector (appeals) was not justified in recording any such finding.the order passed by the collector (appeals) to the extent it permitted deduction of erection charges is set aside. the appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR for the appellant.

2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of empty gelatin capsules, was availing benefit of Notification No. 120/75. Subsequently, four show cause notices were issued stating that charges collected for forwarding and delivery had not been included in the invoice value and duty was payable thereon. On the respondent opposing the notices, the Assistant Collector dropped the demand. The Department moved the Collector (Appeals) against this order. Collector (Appeals) held that deduction for forwarding and delivery charges could not be granted and actual freight charges had not been proved. He also accepted the contention raised on behalf of the respondent in the course of submissions that erection charges should be deducted from the value.

This order is being challenged by the Department. Apparently, the respondent has not preferred an appeal against the order, nor has the respondent filed any cross-objections in this appeal.

3. The only question for consideration is whether Collector (Appeals) was justified in holding that erection charges was a permissible deduction. This was not a matter raised in the Show Cause Notices and not urged before the Assistant Collector. In these circumstances, the Collector (Appeals) was not justified in recording any such finding.

The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) to the extent it permitted deduction of erection charges is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Cce vs Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge U Bhat, S T K.