Standard Chrome Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Standard Chrome Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 03, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36996

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/36996
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 03, 2004
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

Standard Chrome Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(179)ELT366TriDel

Excerpt

.....dated 26-11-1993. penalty of rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed.2. we have heard both sides. the appellant had entered into an agreement with m/s. tisco for supply of entire production of high carbon ferro chrome to them on lump sum conversion fee of rs. 10,930/- pmt. the entire quantity required for production was made available by m/s. tisco and the goods were supplied by the appellants to m/s. sail, durgapur steel plant on behalf of m/s. tisco. forwarding charges at the rate of rs. 560/- were recoverable from the customers. appellants claim that forwarding charges mentioned on purchase order were actually freight charges and, therefore, was not required to be included in the assessable value of the goods is not tenable for the reason that the contract specifically provided for payment of freight charges separately within the same contract; that works order also provided that rs. 560/- pmt would be charged extra as forwarding charges and the invoices under which goods were removed indicated recovery of forwarding charges. in the face of these documents mere production of amendment letter to original purchase order to the effect that forwarding charges may please be read as freight charges is not sufficient to prove that the amount of rs. 560/- pmt was actually freight charges, particularly in the absence of any further evidence.appellants stated before us that the documents relating to freight charges received from sail, durgapur under relevant purchase order dated 26-11-93 are not traceable.3. in view of the above, we hold that the duty demand and penalty are sustainable, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Duty demand of Rs. 38,780/- has been confirmed against the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of High Carbon Ferro Chrome, by inclusion of forwarding charges collected by M/s.

TISCO Ltd. under whose direction goods were dispatched by the appellant to the customers, at the rate of Rs. 560/- PMT over and above the price claimed by the appellants in respect of supplies made to M/s. SAIL, Durgapur under purchase order dated 26-11-1993. Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed.

2. We have heard both sides. The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. TISCO for supply of entire production of High Carbon Ferro Chrome to them on lump sum conversion fee of Rs. 10,930/- PMT. The entire quantity required for production was made available by M/s. TISCO and the goods were supplied by the appellants to M/s. SAIL, Durgapur Steel Plant on behalf of M/s. TISCO. Forwarding charges at the rate of Rs. 560/- were recoverable from the customers. Appellants claim that forwarding charges mentioned on purchase order were actually freight charges and, therefore, was not required to be included in the assessable value of the goods is not tenable for the reason that the contract specifically provided for payment of freight charges separately within the same contract; that works order also provided that Rs. 560/- PMT would be charged extra as forwarding charges and the invoices under which goods were removed indicated recovery of forwarding charges. In the face of these documents mere production of amendment letter to original purchase order to the effect that forwarding charges may please be read as freight charges is not sufficient to prove that the amount of Rs. 560/- PMT was actually freight charges, particularly in the absence of any further evidence.

Appellants stated before us that the documents relating to freight charges received from SAIL, Durgapur under relevant purchase order dated 26-11-93 are not traceable.

3. In view of the above, we hold that the duty demand and penalty are sustainable, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Standard Chrome Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, N T C.N.B.