2007 (4) TMI 68 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Revenue contended that commission and extra are to be added in the assessable value of the goods cleared under the invoices - Held that revenue contention was correct and added it to the assessable value

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition.
2. Inclusion of 'commission' and 'extra' in assessable value.
3. Allegation of maintaining parallel set of invoices.
4. Nature of 'commission' and 'extra' received.
5. Benefit of cum duty price entitlement.
6. Liability for penalty for clearing goods without duty payment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order confirming a demand of Rs. 12,29,798/- and imposing an equal amount as a penalty on the firm. The appellant contested the demand, which included a portion related to clearing Sandal Wood Oil without duty payment, while another part was linked to discrepancies in invoices recovered from customers.

2. The revenue officers found that the appellant maintained private records showing receipt of 'commission' and 'extra,' not deducted from invoice values but added to them. This led to the conclusion that these amounts should be included in the assessable value of goods cleared under the invoices, a point upheld by the Tribunal.

3. Another aspect of the case involved allegations of the appellant maintaining a parallel set of invoices, as copies recovered from customers differed in format and commission details. This discrepancy was considered by the Tribunal in confirming a part of the demand.

4. The appellant argued that the 'commission' was paid to a middleman, and 'extra' represented additional expenses related to sales. However, the Tribunal found from the private records that these amounts were added to invoice values, supporting the revenue's position on their inclusion in assessable value.

5. Regarding the benefit of cum duty price, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's entitlement due to the confirmed demands. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to recalculate the demand and penalty, which would be equal to the duty amount, considering the cum duty benefit.

6. Due to the findings of clearing goods without duty payment and undervaluing assessable value, the Tribunal held the appellant liable for a penalty. The penalty amount was to be recalculated along with the demand, ensuring it equaled the duty amount. The appeal was dismissed, except for granting the cum duty price benefit.