J.J. Foams (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

J.J. Foams (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 25, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36907

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/36907
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Oct 25, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J.J. Foams (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(179)ELT400TriDel

Excerpt

1. the dispute is about valuation of mattresses and pillows sold together by the appellants. the impugned order has assumed that pillow was being supplied free, and that duty was liable to be paid on the pillows also.2. the contention of the assessee is that both the items were being sold as one 'set' and there was no gifting of either item. during the hearing of the appeal, ld. consultant has taken us to the declarations filed by the appellant during the relevant period. the letter dated 31st august, 1999 of the appellant specifically staled that "pu foam mattress with pillow for all regions except southern region". the ld.consultant further stated that under the annexed price list, sale price at depot were being described as "per set + excise duty and other taxes as applicable".3. it is the submission of the ld. consultant that in the face of these documents, there could be no doubt that the price of pillows also remained included in the price of the 'set'. as against this, ld. sdr has pointed out that, earlier when both items were being sold separately, the appellant was giving a discount of 5% on the mattresses and even when that 5% is added to the revised price, the price for the set would not include the price of pillows. it is the dr's contention that in such a case, the revenue authorities were justified in holding that the pillow was being gifted.4. a perusal of the price declaration makes it clear that the appellants were selling two items as a "set". the sale price was for such a "set". in such a situation, there is no warrant in holding either item to be a 'gift'. in this factual situation, we are of the opinion that the finding that pillows were being gifted is not sustainable. ld. sdr's submission based on the earlier pattern of sale and prices cannot be accepted because assessee is at liberty to change pattern of sale and revise prices. the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. The dispute is about valuation of mattresses and pillows sold together by the appellants. The impugned order has assumed that pillow was being supplied free, and that duty was liable to be paid on the pillows also.

2. The contention of the assessee is that both the items were being sold as one 'set' and there was no gifting of either item. During the hearing of the appeal, ld. Consultant has taken us to the declarations filed by the appellant during the relevant period. The letter dated 31st August, 1999 of the appellant specifically staled that "PU Foam mattress with pillow for all regions except Southern region". The ld.Consultant further stated that under the annexed price list, sale price at depot were being described as "per set + Excise Duty and other taxes as applicable".

3. It is the submission of the ld. Consultant that in the face of these documents, there could be no doubt that the price of pillows also remained included in the price of the 'set'. As against this, ld. SDR has pointed out that, earlier when both items were being sold separately, the appellant was giving a discount of 5% on the mattresses and even when that 5% is added to the revised price, the price for the set would not include the price of pillows. It is the DR's contention that in such a case, the Revenue authorities were justified in holding that the pillow was being gifted.

4. A perusal of the price declaration makes it clear that the appellants were selling two items as a "set". The sale price was for such a "set". In such a situation, there is no warrant in holding either item to be a 'gift'. In this factual situation, we are of the opinion that the finding that pillows were being gifted is not sustainable. Ld. SDR's submission based on the earlier pattern of sale and prices cannot be accepted because assessee is at liberty to change pattern of sale and revise prices. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties J.J. Foams (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.