ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. Both these appeals raise a common question in law and hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The issue involved is as to whether the appellants are required to include insurance and freight charges collected from the customers over and above the actual insurance and freight charges paid by them to the insurance agency for the period involved in the matter. The appellants contention is that the prices had been assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. It is his submission that once the valuation has been accepted under Section 4(1)(a), then the same cannot be revised by directing the appellants to add the differential insurance and freight charges.
2. The learned Counsel submits that the issue is covered by this bench ruling rendered in the case of Electro Plasts Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 2005 (68) RLT 765 (CESTAT-Bang.). He also relies on Delhi Bench’s ruling rendered in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Laxmi Engineering 2005 (67) RLT 41(CESTAT-Del.) and Mumbai Bench’s ruling rendered in the case of Candico (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur 2005 (67) RLT 108 (CESTAT-Mum.). The learned Counsel submits that Apex Court ruling rendered in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals 2002 (51) RLT 260 (SC); Baroda Electronic Meters Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (22) RLT 5 (SC); Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CCE have all been applied in the Tribunal rulings. The Bench has also considered Board’s Circulars dated 19.12.2000 and 1.7.2002 in giving the relief to the appellants. He submits that as the issue is covered, the appeals be allowed.
3. The learned JDR reiterates the Departmental view.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the submissions made by the learned Counsel is correct and this bench has already considered the same issue rendered in the case of Electro Plasts (supra) and allowed the party’s appeal. Para 6 of the order is reproduced herein below.
6. After careful consideration, we find that the present case is covered by a number of decisions rendered by the Tribunal. In the case of Filament India v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2003 (57) RLT 750 (CEGAT-Del.) : 2003 (160) ELT 314 (Tri.-Del.), it has been held that the Valuation Rules are applicable for the purpose of Clause (b) and not for Clause (a) of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act. The same is not includable in the assessable value inspite of all the meaning brought out in the statute with effect from 1.7.2000. The above decision is squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, ex-factory price is available. There is no dispute on this point as can be seen from the impugned order. In these circumstances, demanding duty on the freight on the ground that the same had not been indicated in the invoices is against the law. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
We also notice that the other benches of the Tribunal have also applied the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments in holding that the price cannot be revised once the assessments have been completed in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act. In view of the above noted judgments, the impugned orders are not correct and proper. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders by allowing the appeals.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)