ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide impugned order the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,03,765.00 and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- by including MSTC’s service charges, handling charges, mutilation charges and stevedoring charges.
2. After hearing Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate, we find that issue in respect of payment of duty on service charges to MSTC’s is no more res integra and has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the appellants in the case of Hyderabad Industries v. U.O.I. reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 593 (S.C). As such, we confirm the demand of duty on the said service charges. As regards the stevedoring charges, our attention has been drawn to the fact that Commissioner vide his impugned order has already included the landing charges at the rate of 0.9% of the value of the goods. The said landing charges also include stevedoring charges and there was no justification for inclusion of separate stevedoring charges at the rate of Rs. 50/- per M.T. He submits that same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. v. C.C. reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 7 (S.C). After going through the said judgment we find the contention of the learned Advocate to be correct. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Stevedoring or unloading charges are not be added when landing charges assessed at percentage basis has already been added in the assessable value.” Following the ratio of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we set aside that portion of the impugned order vide which demand of duty, has been confirmed as stevedoring charges.
3. As regards the mutilation charges, learned Advocate does not press for any decision on the said legal issue in view of small amount involved. As such in the view of statement made by the learned Advocate we are not passing any orders on the said issue.
4. As regards, the personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- we set aside the same on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
