Century Textiles and Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Century Textiles and Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 26, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34331

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/34331
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., K Kumar
Decided On: Feb 26, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Century Textiles and Industries

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....involved in these appeals are inter-related and relate to the inclusion/exclusion of these charges from the values to be determined. the charges are explained as - (i) mukadami charges which related to transport of goods from godown outside the factory to railway yards or transport company godowns/trucks. (ii) godown rent for storage of goods outside the factory, which is charged, as rent, if the buyer does not lift the material in stipulated period of time. on a question from the bench, the ld. advocate could not specify the period after which such godown rent charges were recovered and this important fact is required to be established. (iii) bank charges are charges after goods are cleared and what bank recovers from the appellants. (iv) insurance charges are charges for insurance of the goods from godown to customers' premises. (v) loading charges which were submitted by the ld. advocate to be recovered for the loading conducted at factory gate when the goods are destined to their godown. how they are different from mukadami charges is to be determined. (vi) unloading charges are for the cost incurred for unloading the goods at the appellant's godown. (vii) transport charges are for the transport of the goods from factory gate to their godown.these deductions of the various charges and the inclusion in valuation for liability to duty has been settled by the supreme court vide vip industries ltd. {2003 (155) elt 8 (sc)}, hindustan lever ltd. {2001 (130) elt 721 (sc)} and escorts jcb ltd. {2002 (146) elt 31 (sc)} depending on the facts of each charge. therefore, the nature of each charge and the time/ place where it has been incurred is to be established on facts. thereafter the law applied, and the values are required to be determined. consequential duty demands, if any, thereafter can be made. for this purpose the matter is required to remitted back to the original authority for re-adjudication after hearing the appellants.2. the other issue involved in one.....

Full Judgment

1. These three appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order.

After hearing both sides and considering that issues involved in these appeals are inter-related and relate to the inclusion/exclusion of these charges from the values to be determined. The charges are explained as - (i) MUKADAMI CHARGES which related to transport of goods from godown outside the factory to railway yards or transport company godowns/trucks.

(ii) GODOWN RENT for storage of goods outside the factory, which is charged, as rent, if the buyer does not lift the material in stipulated period of time. On a question from the Bench, the Ld.

Advocate could not specify the period after which such godown rent charges were recovered and this important fact is required to be established.

(iii) BANK CHARGES are charges after goods are cleared and what bank recovers from the appellants.

(iv) INSURANCE CHARGES are charges for insurance of the goods from godown to customers' premises.

(v) LOADING CHARGES which were submitted by the Ld. Advocate to be recovered for the loading conducted at factory gate when the goods are destined to their godown. How they are different from MUKADAMI CHARGES IS TO BE DETERMINED. (vi) UNLOADING CHARGES are for the cost incurred for unloading the goods at the appellant's godown.

(vii) TRANSPORT CHARGES are for the transport of the goods from factory gate to their godown.

These deductions of the various charges and the inclusion in valuation for liability to duty has been settled by the Supreme Court vide VIP Industries Ltd. {2003 (155) ELT 8 (SC)}, Hindustan Lever Ltd. {2001 (130) ELT 721 (SC)} and Escorts JCB Ltd. {2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC)} depending on the facts of each charge. Therefore, the nature of each charge and the time/ place where it has been incurred is to be established on facts. Thereafter the law applied, and the values are required to be determined. Consequential duty demands, if any, thereafter can be made. For this purpose the matter is required to remitted back to the original authority for re-adjudication after hearing the appellants.

2. The other issue involved in one of the appeals is 'repair and return' of fabric, when the customers find them to be defective. The lower authority have found the goods to be replaced and supplied back While the Ld. Advocate submits that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 173H was followed along with the procedures as per Trade Notice No. 20 (MP) Man made fabrics (11/92 dt. 17.06.1992) was followed. These facts of Rule 173H procedure and the instructions in the Trade Notice having been followed and could be applied or not are to be determined again in the remand proceedings now being proposed and duty demands, if any, arrived at.

3. In view of the findings arrived at these appeals are allowed as remand to the original authority for re-adjudicating the matter after hearing the appellants on all issues.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Century Textiles and Industries vs Commissioner of Central Ex... Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., K Kumar