2008 (2) TMI 665 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the applicability of extended time-limit for demand, consideration of additional amounts received as part of assessable value, determination of taxable value under Excise Law, and imposition of penalty.

Extended time-limit for demand:
The case involved a dispute regarding the extended time-limit for demand of excise duty. The appellants argued that since all relevant facts were already known to the department, the extended time-limit should not apply. However, the lower appellate authority found that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim that details of additional payments were furnished to the department. Consequently, it was held that the demand cannot be challenged on the ground of limitation.

Consideration of additional amounts in assessable value:
The main issue addressed was whether the additional amounts received by the appellants should be considered as part of the assessable value for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal noted that the additional payments were related to the supply of higher quantities of goods, requiring additional expenses by the appellants. Therefore, it was determined that these amounts were part of the value of the goods and should be subject to excise duty.

Taxable value under Excise Law:
The Tribunal clarified that the nature of the contract between the parties was not the determining factor for assessable value under Excise Law. It was emphasized that the price paid by buyers for excess supply over specified limits was a competitive market price, justifying its inclusion in the assessable value. The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to include additional amounts in determining the assessable value.

Imposition of penalty:
Regarding the penalty imposed, the Tribunal considered the disputed valuation issue and concluded that a penalty equal to the additional duty demand was unwarranted. As a result, the penalty was set aside, while affirming that interest was payable as per law. The appeal was dismissed except for the setting aside of the penalty.