ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva
1. These are three appeals filed by M/s. Brindavan Beverages & Ors against the common impugned order.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The short point to be considered in this case is whether additional consideration received from the supplier of raw materials is to be added or not in determining the Assessable value in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuations Rules.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Meerut-I Vs. Coolade Beverages Ltd., reported in 2000 (116) ELT 622(T) as well as in the case of Haryana Drinks (P) Ltd., Vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (121) ELT 718(T).
He drew our attention to the para 8 of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Coolade Beverages Ltd., which is as under:-
Para 8:
8. The submissions in the appeal relating to valuation of goods under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules also is wholly without basis. The Rule itself reads as under :-
“Where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act except that the price is not the sole consideration, the value of such goods shall be based on the aggregate of such price and the amount of the money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee.”
It is clear from the words used that “any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee (emphasis supplied) alone is to be added where excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 4 of Central Excise Act.” The Commissioner was right in following this clear provision of law. the Revenue’s submissions that “the adjudicator has given a simple reading to Rule 5 which, inter alia, requires that additional consideration should flow directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee” and that “he has never tried to go with the spirit of issuing Credit Note by Britco to the party”, are totally against the canons of interpretation of statutes. The meaning of a legal provision is to be obtained from the plain meaning of the words used. Looking for the “spirit” of a provision is permissible only in cases of ambiguity in the language of the statute and not otherwise. This being the legal position, Revenue’s appeal on this score also has to fail.
In view of the above discussions, the Appeal No. 2438/98-A filed by C.C.E., Meerut against Order-in-Original No. 34/97, dated 7-6-1997 is dismissed. We pass the following orders in respect of the other appeals.
5. Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for the revenue submitted that Coolade Beverages Ltd., referred to by the other side is not applicable to the facts of this case.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. On considering the submissions made by both sides we find that who fixes the price is not the criteria in determining the assessable value. It is clear in the case referred to above that additional consideration paid by the supplier of raw material cannot be added in determining the Assessable Value. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision and the contention of the party we set aside the impugned order and accordingly these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
(Pronounced and Dictated in the Open Court)