2008 (7) TMI 647 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - bonus amount - includibility - Held that - there was no justification for treating the bonus amount as part of the price of the goods and demanding duty on that basis. The action is also patently unjust as it has been done without giving abatement for the penalties. Accordingly, the demand is set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal vacating demand and imposing penalty on refractory bricks clearance. Revenue's grounds: Reference Application against CEGAT order; bonus as additional consideration for excisable goods. Lower authority's treatment of bonus and penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, stemmed from the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, wherein a demand on M/s. VRW Refractories was vacated, and a penalty was imposed. The dispute arose from the treatment of bonus and penalties related to the clearance of refractory bricks by the respondents to steel plants.

The facts revealed that the respondents received additional amounts post-clearance from customers based on the performance of the bricks. The Revenue contended that the bonus received should be considered as additional consideration for the excisable goods cleared, while the penalties were ignored by the lower authority.

One of the Revenue's grounds was the pending Reference Application in the High Court against a CEGAT order in a similar case. Additionally, the Revenue argued that the bonus received constituted additional consideration for the goods cleared. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, emphasizing that the price of the bricks for excise duty purposes remained unaffected by the bonus or penalties.

The Tribunal, upholding the Commissioner's decision, highlighted that excise duty should be levied on the normal price of goods at the time of removal, irrespective of post-sale provisions like bonuses and penalties. Referring to precedent cases, including Jalan Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CCE, the Tribunal reiterated that bonus amounts for better performance were not to be included in the assessable value of the goods.

Considering the consistent stance of the Tribunal on similar issues, the appeal by the Revenue was deemed meritless. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision reflected the principle that post-sale transactions like bonuses should not impact the excise duty levied on goods sold at the time of removal.