Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, BANGALORE versus M/S JSW STEEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYANAGAR STEEL LTD.) on 9 April 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
ACOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, BANGALORE
v.
M/S JSW STEEL LTD.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYANAGARSTEEL LTD.)
B
(Civil Appeal No.531 of 2008)
APRIL 09, 2019
[S.A. BOBDE, DEEPAK GUPTA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]C
Central Excise Act, 1944 – ss.4 and 11AB – Respondentmanufactured Pig Iron and HR Coil Sheets, falling under Chapter72, 1985 Act – While selling the goods, invoices were raised on theprice of goods plus ‘Dharmada’, a charitable donation fromcustomers, which was credited to charity – Show cause notice issuedDby the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Bellarycalling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why penaltyu/r.25, 2002 Rules and interest u/s.11AB, 1944 Act be not levied –Deputy Commissioner held that the Dharmada is to be added to theassessable value for the payment of central excise duty –Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order – CESTAT set asideEthe order – On appeal, held: Present case has been tagged withM/s. D.J. Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, [2019]6 SCR 925 wherein it was held that the amount of Dharmada cannotbe included in the transaction value for the purposes of assessments– In view of the said judgment, the present appeal is dismissed –FCentral Excise Rules, 2002 – r.25 – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985– Chapter 72.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The present case has been tagged with the caseof M/s D.J. Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, NashikGwhich was referred to this Bench vide order dated 29.07.2015. Itwas held that the amount of Dharmada cannot be included in thetransaction value for the purposes of assessments. In view of thejudgment in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5282 of 2005, M/s D.J.Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, the presentHappeal is dismissed. [Paras 5, 6][940-D-E]
M/s D.J. Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Nashik [2019] 6 SCR 925 – relied on.
Collector v. Panchmukhi Engineering Works (2003)(158) ELT 550 (SC) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 6 SCR 925relied onPara 6(2003) (158) ELT 550 (SC)referred toPara 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 531 of2008.
From the Judgment and Order No. 440/2007 dated 04.4.2007 ofthe Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South ZonalBench, Bangalore in Appeal No. E/395/2005.
K. Radhakrishnan, S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Advs., Alok Yadav,K. Ajit Singh, Praveen Kumar, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Aruna Gupta,B. Krishna Prasad, U. A. Rana, Himanshu Mehta,(for M/s. Gagrat andCo,) Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.A. BOBDE, J. 1.The Revenue-Appellant has come in appealagainst the order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal(for short “CESTAT”) dated 04.04.2007. The Respondent manufacturedgoods falling under Chapter 72 of The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The Respondent manufactured Pig Iron and HR Coil Sheets. While sellingthe goods they raised invoices on the price of goods plus ‘Dharmada’ acharitable donation from customers. According to the Respondent, theDharmada was meant for charity and was accordingly credited to charity.
2. However, show cause notice dated 19.03.2004 was issued bythe office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs,Bellary under Section 4 of the Act calling upon the Respondent to showcause as to why penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shouldnot be levied. After hearing the Respondent, the Deputy Commissionervide order dated 10.09.2004 held that the Dharmada is to be added tothe assessable value for the payment of central excise duty.
3. Thereafter, in an appeal filed by the Respondent, theCommissioner (Appeals), confirmed the decision of the Deputy A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ACommissioner and rejected the appeal and held that Dharmada shouldbe added to the assessable value. Therefore, the goods were liable to beassessed on the basis of their price plus Dharmada.
The CESTAT in an appeal filed by the Respondent, by judgementdated 04.04.2007, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed byBCommissioner (Appeals) dated 29.03.2005. The CESTAT purported tofollow its judgment in the case of Mohan and Co., Madras vs. CCEMadras, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal, wherebythis Court held that Dharmada was not liable to be added in the assessablevalue.
C4. Thereafter, in Civil Appeal No.531 of 2008 before this Court, itwas contended by the Appellant before a Division Bench of this Court,that the decision in Collector vs. Panchmukhi Engineering Works[1] wasto be followed. Thus, contending that Dharmada should be a part of theassessable value.
D5. The present case has been tagged with the case of M/s D.J.Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik which has beenreferred to this Bench vide order dated 29.07.2015. We have held thatthe amount of Dharmada cannot be included in the transaction value forthe purposes of assessments.
E6. In view of the judgment in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5282 of2005, M/s D.J. Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik,we hereby dismiss the present appeal.
F
Divya Pandey
Appeal dismissed.
G12003 (158) ELT 550 (SC)
H