Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Godrej Soaps Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 18, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19149

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/19149
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 18, 2000
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

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Godrej Soaps Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(122)ELT782TriDel

Excerpt

.....charges in the assessable value of the goods under section 4 of the central excises act, 1944.2. the asstt. collector through the impugned order dated 14-10-1996 allowed the exclusion both these charges from the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents. his order-in-original was confirmed by the commissioner (appeals) through order-in-appeal dated 6-3-2000.3. the revenue has come-up in appeal before the tribunal against the impugned order of the commissioner of central excise (appeals). the revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that clearing and forwarding charges and bank charges both are includible in the assessable value and that the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) deserves to be set aside on that account.4. this very ground has been reiterated by shri p.k. jain, sdr before us.5. on the other hand, shri g.s. geri, authorised representative of the respondents has contended that the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) allowing deduction of both these charges from the assessable value of the goods is perfectly valid.7. regarding the inclusion of the bank charges in the assessable value of the goods, the matter has been settled by the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of gomti carbon-di-oxide and ors. v. cce, jaipur and (vice-versa) - 2000 (38) rlt 1039]. in that case, it has been ruled out by the larger bench that bank charges or collection charges are not deductible under section 4 of the central excises act, 1944.8. following this law laid-down by the larger bench, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) to that extent deserves to be set aside as the respondents could not be given deduction of the bank charges as claimed by them under section 4 of the act.9. so far as the clearing and forwarding charges (c and f) are concerned, the plea of the revenue that same are also not deductible, can not be accepted in view of the ratio of law laid-down by the tribunal in the.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the inclusion of the Clearing and Forwarding (C and F) Charges and Bank Charges in the assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944.

2. The Asstt. Collector through the impugned order dated 14-10-1996 allowed the exclusion both these charges from the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents. His order-in-original was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through order-in-appeal dated 6-3-2000.

3. The Revenue has come-up in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that Clearing and Forwarding Charges and Bank Charges both are includible in the assessable value and that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside on that account.

4. This very ground has been reiterated by Shri P.K. Jain, SDR before us.

5. On the other hand, Shri G.S. Geri, authorised representative of the respondents has contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing deduction of both these charges from the assessable value of the goods is perfectly valid.

7. Regarding the inclusion of the Bank Charges in the assessable value of the goods, the matter has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gomti Carbon-Di-Oxide and Ors. v. CCE, Jaipur and (Vice-Versa) - 2000 (38) RLT 1039]. In that case, it has been ruled out by the Larger Bench that bank charges or collection charges are not deductible under Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944.

8. Following this law laid-down by the Larger Bench, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to that extent deserves to be set aside as the respondents could not be given deduction of the bank charges as claimed by them under Section 4 of the Act.

9. So far as the Clearing and Forwarding Charges (C and F) are concerned, the plea of the Revenue that same are also not deductible, can not be accepted in view of the ratio of law laid-down by the Tribunal in the case of Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 512 (Tribunal), Guljag Chemicals and Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE -1993 (63) E.L.T. 710 (Tribunal) and Kerala Financial Corporation v.CCE -1993 (63) E.L.T. 16 (Kerala). In all these cases, the Tribunal has taken a consistent view that clearing and forwarding (C and F) charges are excludible from the assessable value of the goods, under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowing the deduction of these charges to the respondents cannot be said erroneous in law.

10. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed to the extent that the bank charges will not be deductible from the assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the Act. However, Clearing and Forwarding Charges will be deductible from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act, as observed. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is accordingly modified.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Godrej Soaps Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax