2006 (7) TMI 71 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation(Central Excise) - Screen development charges for design art work - Held Demand of duty on debits amounted to twice duty on same amount - Demand not sustainable because issued debit note before order confirmation by customer

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of Screen Development Charges (SDC) in assessable value
- Non-inclusion of freight charges in assessable value
- Non-inclusion of packing charges in assessable value
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC
- Imposition of interest under Section 11AB

Analysis:

Inclusion of Screen Development Charges (SDC) in assessable value:
The appellants argued that the debit notes raised for SDC were for security purposes and were later canceled with credit notes upon order confirmation. They contended that demanding duty on the amount of the debits would result in double taxation. The Tribunal found the appellants' explanation reasonable, noting that the charges for designs were included in the assessable value of the processed fabric. Citing a relevant case law, the Tribunal ruled that the differential duty demanded was not sustainable in law.

Non-inclusion of freight and packing charges in assessable value:
The Tribunal observed that the short payment for freight and packing charges had already been paid before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, it was held that the differential duty demanded on account of SDC was not sustainable. Consequently, no penalty under Section 11AC or interest under Section 11AB could be imposed.

Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC:
The appellants argued that the demand for the period up to a certain date was time-barred, citing a case law to support their claim. They contended that where the demand is barred by limitation, no penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the duty on freight and packing charges had been paid well before the Show Cause Notice was issued, hence no penalty could be levied.

Conclusion:
After careful consideration of the facts and arguments presented, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned Order-in-Appeal (OIA). Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the OIA was set aside. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27-7-2006.