Vip Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 May, 2000

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Vip Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 (74) ECC 699
Bench: S T Gowri, J Srinivasamurthy


Gowri Shankar, Member (T)

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 11,82,413.

2. We have heard both sides.

3. The applicant sells luggages manufactured by it at the factory gate, as also at its depots. The question is whether, after amendment of Section 4 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1996, whereby there was provision made for a depot to be considered a place of removal within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act, and also for accepting separate prices prevailing at each place of removal, the freight incurred by the applicant for transporting the goods from the factory gate to the depot should form part of the assessable value.

4. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have declined to accept the applicability of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. for the reason that the position in law has changed. We are prima facie unable to see how, by the amendment carried out to Section 4, the position with regard to inclusion of freight has undergone any change. It appears to us prima facie that the effect of the amendment is to include, as a place of removal, the depot in addition to the factory gate. In that case, it would follow that the price prevailing at the factory gate for removal from there, which ultimately would not include freight, and the price prevailing at the depot for removal from the depot, which again would by logical extension not includible, is what should be applied.

5. In this prima facie view of the matter, we waive deposit of the duty demanded and stay its recovery. Accepting the contention of the Advocate for the applicant that this is a repetitive issue, we accede to the request for out of turn hearing and list the appeal on 2.8.2000.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information