Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indo-rama Synthetics Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. we have heard shri b.k. choubey for the revenue and shri d.c. dighe for the respondent.2. the respondents when narrating the details of the amounts charged from their buyers, in the invoices issued under rule 52a of the central excise rules, 1944 indicated certain amounts as per the following entry: vide show cause notice dated 31-10-1994 it was alleged that such charges collected during the period april 1994 to june 1994 were includible in the assessable value and the resultant demand of rs. 1,931/- was made before the assistant collector. case law was cited to the effect that such charges were not includible. the claim was made that the charges were incurred at the place of destination and as such the question of inclusion did not arise. the assistant commissioner observed that the charges were called "loading/unloading and handling charges". he arbitrarily split the charges into two and held that the loading charges were includible. since they were incurred inside the factory limited the confirmation of demand to 1/2 the amount demanded i.e. rs. 965/-. he also imposed a penalty of rs. 1000/- on the assessees. the assessee then filed an appeal. the commissioner (appeals) held that the charges were incurred for transport beyond the factory and as such were not includible in the assessable value. he did not accept the arbitrary division as made by the assistant collector.he held that since the charges were incurred for destination at bhivandi, the inclusion was not warranted. basing reliance on the following case law he allowed the appeal: 3. in the grounds of appeal the observations made by the assistant commissioner are sought to be justified and upheld. although the appeal papers do not contain the relevant papers, we have seen the copy of the show cause notice available with the respondents. the notice makes a bare allegation on the perusal of the invoices at the time of finalisation of rt 12 returns. there is nothing to indicate as to the location at which the expenses or part thereof was incurred. these details were later filled in by the assistant collector which the assessee refuted at each stage and even before us. the commissioner was right in holding that such arbitrary and baseless inclusion could not be upheld.4. we find nothing of substance in the appeal. we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.

Judgment:
1. We have heard Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue and Shri D.C. Dighe for the Respondent.

2. The respondents when narrating the details of the amounts charged from their buyers, in the invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 indicated certain amounts as per the following entry: Vide show cause notice dated 31-10-1994 it was alleged that such charges collected during the period April 1994 to June 1994 were includible in the assessable value and the resultant demand of Rs. 1,931/- was made before the Assistant Collector. Case law was cited to the effect that such charges were not includible. The claim was made that the charges were incurred at the place of destination and as such the question of inclusion did not arise. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the charges were called "loading/unloading and handling charges". He arbitrarily split the charges into two and held that the loading charges were includible. Since they were incurred inside the factory limited the confirmation of demand to 1/2 the amount demanded i.e. Rs. 965/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the assessees. The assessee then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the charges were incurred for transport beyond the factory and as such were not includible in the assessable value. He did not accept the arbitrary division as made by the Assistant Collector.

He held that since the charges were incurred for destination at Bhivandi, the inclusion was not warranted. Basing reliance on the following case law he allowed the appeal: 3. In the grounds of appeal the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner are sought to be justified and upheld. Although the appeal papers do not contain the relevant papers, we have seen the copy of the show cause notice available with the respondents. The notice makes a bare allegation on the perusal of the invoices at the time of finalisation of RT 12 returns. There is nothing to indicate as to the location at which the expenses or part thereof was incurred. These details were later filled in by the Assistant Collector which the assessee refuted at each stage and even before us. The Commissioner was right in holding that such arbitrary and baseless inclusion could not be upheld.4. We find nothing of substance in the appeal. We uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.