Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH versus M/S SUPREME FABRICS LTD.
- Decided
- 12 December 2007
- Judges listed
- S.H. KAPADIA, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2007] 13 S.C.R. 468 · 2007 INSC 1280
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
None appears on behalf of the sole respondent.
p. 468, margin G
The issue involved in this case is whether accruing, loading charges collected by the assessee were liable to be treated as cum-duty price and
p. 468, margin G
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
p. 469
CHANDIGARH v. MIS SUPREME FABRICS if so whether the Department was obliged to make allowing abatement for central excise duty payable on [see para 2(ii) of the civil appeal paper book].
p. 469
Mis Supreme Fabrics Ltd., Ludhiana claimed assessable value on account of loading charges incurred clearances from the factory gate.
p. 469, margin A
The AO held that deduction was not admissible 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The AO took amount ofloading charges was includible in the assessable took the view that the assessee had omitted to include in the assessable value and, therefore, it was not abatement on account of the said charges.
p. 469, margin B
Aggrieved by the decision, the assessee carried to the Commissioner (A). It was held that the said includible in the assessable value, however, following Tribunal in the case in Srichakra Tyres Ltd v. Excise, Madras, (1999) 108 E.L.T. 361(Tribunal), entitled to abatement. We quote hereinbelow the relevant the order of the Commissioner (A), which reads as "Regarding calculation of assessable value appellants that value should be treated as cum-duty-price. has been decided by CEGAT-LARGER Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of CEA 1944-Excise subsequently is to be abated from total sale treating it as cum-duty price for determination value and quantum of duty demand payable. & Ors. v. CCE (1999(32)RLT-I(CEGAT)]. As of duty on 'loading charges' has arisen subsequently amounts are total consideration collected as loading be taken as cum-duty prices and deinand has
p. 469, margin C
allowing abatement of C.Ex.duty payable." The said order of the Commissioner came to be upheld Hence, the Department has come to this Court by A Shri R. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, stated that the loading charges collected by the assessee was part of cost of production and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of abatement. It was further contended on behalf of the
pp. 469–470, margin G
Department that the'Department had not accepted the judgment of the B Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. (supra) and that the Department had preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 5862-5863/99 against the judgment of the Tribunal in Srichakra Tyres Ltd. (supra). According to the learned counsel, the matter is pending before this Court. According
p. 470
to the learned counsel the law laid down by the Tribunal in the judgment in Srichakra Tyres Ltd. (supra) is not correct.
p. 470
We find no merit in the above arguments. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no averment in the grounds of appeal filed by the
p. 470, margin C
Department before the Tribunal that the loading constituted cost of production. Secondly, we find from the record that the Department's Civil Appeal Nos. 5862-63 of 1999, which has been referred to in the synopsis at page 'D' have been dismissed by three-Judge Bench ohhis Court vide Order dated 26.2.2002, which are reproduce hereinbelow:
p. 470, margin C
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the stand of the respondents is correct. Various calculations have been made and we have taken into consideration the subsequent price which has been approved by the Department with effect from 8.10.1992 and it clearly
p. 470, margin D
appears to us that the revision of the price was cum-duty and, therefore, the element of duty in the increased amount had to be deducted. The appeals are dismissed.
p. 470, margin E
No costs."
p. 470, margin F
(emphasis supplied)
p. 470, margin F
For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in the civil appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. RP. Appeal dismissed.
p. 470, margin F