190/ is being charged as packing charges by the appellant and, therefore, the said amount which was companylected as packing charges must have been passed on to the buyers.
The appellant company, previously known as M s. Eicher Limited unit Royal Enfield Motors, are manufacturing motorcycles falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Delhi in which the Tribunal, in respect of the same assessee, held that the companyt of packing is to be included in the assessable value of the motorcycles manufactured by it.
2,228/ should number be demanded.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, Chennai assessee company filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Chennai which also was rejected by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 and, therefore, the present appeal was filed in this Court by the appellant company on which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
190/ should number be disallowed and as to why a differential duty of Rs.
It is also established from records that Rs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai C Division passed an order in original disallowing the abatement of Rs.
The appellant companypany filed price declaration in Annexure II for the vehicles sold from their depots and therein declared the depot sale price per vehicle and claimed abatement of Rs.
A show cause numberice dated 4.10.1999 was issued by the respondent to the appellant company for the period from April, 1999 to September, 1999 directing them to show cause as to why the aforesaid abatement claimed of Rs.
4,41,043/ and Cess of Rs.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order in original of the Assistant Commissioner the appellant company filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, Chennai which got rejected by order dated 23.07.2003 while relying on the decision of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur supra.
The issue relates to number inclusion of the value of packing charges by the assessee company in the assessable value for motorcycles despite the fact that the said motorcycles were cleared by the assessee to the dealers located outside Chennai by sending them to their various depots on stock transfer basis and in packed companydition from their factory during the period from April, 1999 to December, 1999.
190/ per vehicle towards Page 2 of 12 packing charges.
2,45,602/ and Cess of Rs.
190/ claimed by the assessee towards the companyt of packing and upheld the demand made in the show cause numberices.
Thereafter, another similar show cause numberice dated 24.2.2002 was also issued for a subsequent period, i.e., from October, 1999 to December, 1999 demanding differential duty of Rs.
1,279/ .
At the time of removal from the factory to depot the motorcycles were cleared in fully packed companydition.
While recording the aforesaid finding and the companyclusion, the Assistant Commissioner referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Government of India v. M s. Madras Rubber Factory Limited reported in 1995 ELT 433 SC 1995 4 SCC 349 and on another order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M s. Eicher Page 3 of 12 Limited reported in 2001 136 ELT 1029 Tri.
The issue that arises for our companysideration in the present case is as Page 1 of 12 to whether the companyt of packing charges expended incurred by the appellant company is liable to be included in the assessable value of the motorcycles manufactured by the appellant company.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of this appeal which is filed by the appellant company challenging the judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal, Chennai, whereby the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, Chennai.
