w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v/s International Bakery Products Ltd.

    Appeal No.E/967 of 2003 & E/CO/51 of 2004

    Decided On, 12 January 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
    By, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    Shri K.P.Jagadeesan, Advocate For the Appellants.



Judgment Text

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy


Heard both sides. The department seeks to include depreciation amount towards the cost of machinery which has been supplied free of cost by the customers to the respondents, for manufacture of the impugned goods (biscuits) which has been disallowed by the lower appellate authority leading to the appeal by the department.



2. We find that the issue regarding inclusion of amortized cost of machinery/equipment supplied free of cost by the customers to the job worker is settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2000 (117) ELT 578]. Hence we find that the order of the lower appellate authority is not in conformity with the decision of the Larger Bench cited above.



3. We also find that the details of the supply of machinery free of cost were never disclosed to the department by the appellants. Hence, we are of the view that the longer period of limitation is required to be invoked in this case. The respondents are challenging the inclusion of the entire amount of depreciation. In the light of the Larger Bench decision cited above, only the amortized cost of the machinery supplied free which is required to be included while calculating the value of the impugned goods (biscuits). Accordingly, for including the same, while setting aside the impugned order, we remand the matter to the original authority for fresh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

decision. He shall give adequate opportunity to the respondents before passing fresh orders. The cross-objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed of.
O R