2013 (11) TMI 686 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Whether the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars are to be included in the assessable value of cars in the light of the definition of transaction value given in Section 4(3) (d) of the Central Excise Act 1944? Tribunal s earlier order on same issue in respect of same appellant based on admitted facts and not on point of law. Held that amount liable to be paid by buyer by reason or in connection with sale of goods including amount paid on behalf of assessee to dealer or person selling vehicle includible - there is no financial difficulty faced by the appellants in depositing the amount in question. In view of the same we direct both the appellants/applicants to deposit the entire amount of duty confirmed against them within ten weeks from the date of order - Stay denied.

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions disposal arising from the same impugned order confirming central excise duty.
1. Valuation Issue: Tribunal's remand order for re-quantification of duty liability.
2. Challenge to Final Order: Appellant's challenge to the final order before the Supreme Court.
3. Stay Application: Appellant's application for unconditional stay based on subsequent decisions.
4. Revenue's Submission: Argument for directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount.
5. Operative Legal Position: Interpretation of the Larger Bench decision and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the stay petition.

Valuation Issue Analysis:
The impugned order confirmed central excise duty following a remand order for re-quantification by the Tribunal. The Commissioner correctly re-quantified the demand, which the appellant's advocate acknowledged. The Larger Bench's decision against the appellant on including charges in the assessable value was pivotal in this valuation issue.

Challenge to Final Order Analysis:
The appellant challenged the final order before the Supreme Court, which was admitted but the stay application was later rejected. The Tribunal noted that the dismissal of the stay petition implied the Larger Bench's decision remained valid. The Commissioner quantified the duty demand in line with the remand order, based on the operative legal position.

Stay Application Analysis:
The appellant sought an unconditional stay based on subsequent decisions, including a Bombay High Court ruling. However, the Tribunal found that the dismissal of the stay petition by the Supreme Court upheld the Larger Bench decision, making it the operative legal position. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount within a specified timeframe.

Revenue's Submission Analysis:
The Revenue argued for directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount, considering the quantification had been done as per the Larger Bench decision and the remand order. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing the need for compliance with the legal position established by the Larger Bench decision and subsequent orders.

Operative Legal Position Analysis:
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the stay petition by the Supreme Court indicated the validity of the Larger Bench decision. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea for dispensation with the pre-deposit condition, emphasizing the need to follow the established legal position. The direction to deposit the duty amount within a specified timeframe was based on the prevailing legal interpretation.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues related to the valuation dispute, challenge to the final order, stay application, revenue's submission, and the interpretation of the operative legal position, providing a detailed understanding of the judgment's key aspects and legal reasoning.