LAWS(SC)-2019-4-37

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Vs. M/S JSW STEEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYANAGAR STEEL LTD.)

Decided On April 09, 2019
Commissioner Of Central Excise And Customs, Bangalore Appellant
V/S
M/S Jsw Steel Ltd. (Formerly Known As Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue-Appellant has come in appeal against the order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal (for short "CESTAT") dated 04.04.2007. The Respondent manufactured goods falling under Chapter 72 of The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent manufactured Pig Iron and HR Coil Sheets. While selling the goods they raised invoices on the price of goods plus 'Dharmada' a charitable donation from customers. According to the Respondent, the Dharmada was meant for charity and was accordingly credited to charity.

(2.) However, show cause notice dated 19.03.2004 was issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bellary under Section 4 of the Act calling upon theRespondent to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be levied. After hearing the Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 10.09.2004 held that the Dharmada is to be added to the assessable value for the payment of central excise duty.

(3.) Thereafter, in an appeal filed by the Respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and rejected the appeal and held that Dharmada should be added to the assessable value. Therefore, the goods were liable to be assessed on the basis of their price plus Dharmada. The CESTAT in an appeal filed by the Respondent, by judgement dated 04.04.2007, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.03.2005. The CESTAT purported to follow its judgment in the case of Mohan and Co., Madras vs. CCE Madras, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal, whereby this Court held that Dharmada was not liable to be added in the assessable value.