M\/s. Asia Cables Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1570 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 27-8-2018
Appeal No. E\/75\/2011 – Final Order No. 42317\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri Akhil Suresh, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe appellants are engaged in manufacture of PVC insulated cables and are registered with the Central Excise Department. It was alleged that the appellants have collected separately, in addition to the price of the goods sold, Inspection Charges, Service charges and Freight Charges from their buyers through debit notes. According to the department, these amounts have to be included in the assessable value for discharging the excise duty. As the appellant did not include these amounts in the transaction value and did not pay duty on su<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Appeals) has excluded the railway freight. These are service charges which are not relatable to 'sale' effected by the appellant to the contractors on whose behalf the railway transport is arranged. Once the appellants have dispatched the goods from their end, that is the place of removal, which is the factory, contract terms are completed. In other words, the title to the goods is passed on to the contractor and the subsequent transport of goods is only at the instance of the contractor as it can be seen from one of the contracts that the consignee has been indicated as OS, S&T Stores, Projects, Boiguda, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The appellants have rendered such services only as per the instructions of the contractor. Therefore, the said amount cannot be included in the assessable value. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n o transport arrangement through rail. These charges have been paid to M\/s. ARR Cargo Movers towards making arrangements for the transport of goods through railway. It can be seen that these are in connection with the loading \/ cargo handling of the goods for transportation by railway. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the freight charges are not includible in the assessable value since the said charges are collected after the place of removal which is the factory gate. On the very basis, it can be definitely held that the service charges collected for cargo handling on the instruction of the contractor cannot be included in the assessable value. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Asia Cables Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ChennaiCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1570 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 27-8-2018Appeal No. E\/75\/2011 – Final Order No. 42317\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Akhil Suresh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC … Continue reading “M\/s. Asia Cables Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. With respect to service charges, he submitted that the appellant has raised debit notes for collection of <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. From the above discussion, we hold that the demand raised alleging that the service charges as well as pre-delivery inspection charges are includible in the assessable value cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
\n(O<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n