Royal Enfield (Unit of M/S.Eicher Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Nov-24-2009 |
| Appeal No.E/872 of 2003 |
| THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER |
| Royal Enfield (Unit of M/S.Eicher Ltd.) |
| Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai |
| Shri K.S.Venkataraju, Advocate, Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR. |
per jyoti balasundaram whether cost of packing of motor cycles sold through depots in unpacked condition is includible in the assessable value, is the issue which arises for determination in the present appeal according to the assessees, such cost is required to be excluded from the assessable value. 2. we have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2001 (136) elt 1029 [commissioner of c.ex., jaipur vs eicher ltd.]. [the present assessee-company was earlier known as eicher ltd.]. although ld. counsel for the appellants valiantly attempts to persuade the bench to depart from the view already taken, we find that the attempt is not successful for the reason that the facts of the earlier case are in no way different from the present one. ld. counsel contends that the decision of the apex court in mrf ltd. 1995 (77) elt 433 (sc) has not been correctly interpreted. however, we find that all the issues were considered by the bench in the decision cited supra in their own case and, therefore, we follow the same and uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Per Jyoti Balasundaram
Whether cost of packing of motor cycles sold through depots in unpacked condition is includible in the assessable value, is the issue which arises for determination in the present appeal according to the assessees, such cost is required to be excluded from the assessable value.
2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by Tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2001 (136) ELT 1029 [Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur Vs Eicher Ltd.]. [The present assessee-company was earlier known as Eicher Ltd.]. Although ld. counsel for the appellants valiantly attempts to persuade the Bench to depart from the view already taken, we find that the attempt is not successful for the reason that the facts of the earlier case are in no way different from the present one. Ld. counsel contends that the decision of the apex court in MRF Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) has not been correctly interpreted. However, we find that all the issues were considered by the Bench in the decision cited supra in their own case and, therefore, we follow the same and uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.