2014 (11) TMI 1009 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty after sale of goods - Valuation - Price variations in respect to levy sugar - Held that - By no stretch of imagination the submission at bar can be accepted that transaction value was restricted to price which was paid to the appellant at the time of delivery of goods/removal of goods. The term transaction value is defined in this Section and it becomes clear on careful perusal of this definition that whatever amount is received as price of goods would become transaction value and on the basis of such transaction value, duty of excise is chargeable. We therefore, reject this contention and hold that no substantial question of law arise from this submission. Second point which is advanced at the bar is that the appellant is not liable to pay interest. However, Courts below on facts held that the appellant was under obligation to pay difference of excise duty and such liability arose even on the date of removal of goods. We are not inclined to discuss facts but the findings have now attained finality. - There is no substantial question of law - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay additional excise duty on goods sold.
2. Whether there is any substantial question of law arising in the appeal.
3. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Liability to pay interest on the difference of excise duty.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the liability of the appellant to pay additional excise duty on goods sold. The appellant, a sugar manufacturer, was obligated to sell part of the sugar stock as levy sugar to the government at a lower price, resulting in a lesser excise duty payment. Subsequently, the government admitted its liability to pay more to the appellant, who received additional consideration but did not pay the additional excise duty demanded later by the department. The authorities consistently held the appellant liable for the difference in excise duty, although the appellant was relieved of penalty by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The court deliberated on whether there was a substantial question of law in the appeal. The appellant argued that once the excise duty was paid at the time of selling the sugar as levy sugar, their liability ended as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the transaction value, as defined in Section 4, includes any amount received as the price of goods, making the duty of excise chargeable based on this transaction value. Thus, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from this argument.

3. Another point raised was regarding the liability to pay interest on the difference of excise duty. The lower courts had held the appellant responsible for paying the difference in excise duty, including interest, from the date of goods removal. Despite the appellant's argument against the liability to pay interest, the court upheld the lower courts' findings, stating that the issue had already been conclusively settled. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, as it did not find any substantial question of law regarding the interest payable by the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the appellant's liability for additional excise duty on goods sold, interprets Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and addresses the issue of interest payment. The court's decision highlights the importance of transaction value in determining excise duty and affirms the lower courts' rulings on the appellant's obligations, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial legal questions.