MAJESTIC AUTO LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeals are being taken up in pursuance to the order -dated 20.4.2005 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of two Wheeled Motor Vehicles. Appellants also exporting the motor vehicles manufactured by them. The assessments were made Page 0547 provisional and, thereafter, getting the relevant data from the appellants, the adjudicating authority finalized the assessment. While finalizing the assessments, the adjudicating authority held that in view of Section 4 (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 the expenses incurred on freight and insurance for export under Bond without payment of duty are not allowable as deductions from the assessable value on goods for home consumption. Against this finding, appellants filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the present appellants on the ground that the expenses incurred on freight and insurances goods exported under Bond, is admissible deductions. Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed the demands on the ground that transport charges incurred in relation to the goods exported cannot be excluded from the price of sold from domestic consumption. The present appellant filed (Appeals) before Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: However, the grievance of the appellant is that the question framed by the Tribunal was wholly wrong. According to the appellant, it had never sought to include the freight incurred for transporting the goods from the factory for export for computing the freight to be deducted for fixing the assessable value of the goods cleared from home consumption. The appellant has said that the Tribunal should have considered the matter in the light of the following questions alone:

(3.) THERE is no dispute that expenses incurred on freight and insurance for the goods exported under Bond without payment of duty are not allowable as deductions from the assessable value on goods for home consumption. The contention is that for arriving at the assessable value of the exported goods equalized the freight and insurance expenses incurred on the goods from the factory to the Airport are deduct -able. The contention is that this Page 0548 exercise is necessary in view of the Board Circular No. 203/37/96 -CX dated 26.4.1996. It is also mandatory on the part of the appellants to mention assessable value of the goods in the AR -4 Form and in the invoice also. Therefore, assessable value of the goods which are exported to be determined. The contention is that for determination of the assessable value they are entitled for the equivalent freight and insurance from the factory to the port. The contention, is that lower authority as well as the adjudicating authority has wrongly decided the issue. The contention is that now the Supreme Court has framed the issues to be decided to resolve the dispute. The contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority rightly held that equalized freight and insurance incurred on the exported goods is not admissible deduction from the assessable value of the goods cleared for the home consumption. For this preposition, the appellant had no objection. Now, the issues are to be decided as framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court framed the following issues :