9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 42 - SC - Central ExciseValuation of goods - Demand of duty - Period of Limitation - Suppression of facts - Inclusion of sales tax collected in the assessable value of goods - Whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect of full amount of sales tax payable at the rate of 2% - Held that - assessee has claimed that there is difference between grant of incentive and extension of benefit of exemption, and the scheme, i.e., the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989 does not relate to exemption but incentive. To elaborate, the assessee, under the said Scheme, is permitted to retain 75% of the sales tax collected as incentive and is liable to pay 25% to the department. 75% of the amount retained has been treated as incentive by the State Government. It is pointed out that such retention of sales tax is a deemed payment of sales tax to the State exchequer and for the said purpose reliance is placed on Circular No. 378/11/98-CX dated 12.3.1998 issued by C.B.E.C. On perusal of the assessment orders brought on record, it is quite clear that in pursuance of the Scheme 75% of the sales tax amount was credited to the account of the State Government as payment towards sales tax by the manufacturer. On a studied scrutiny of the scheme we have no scintilla of doubt that it is a pure and simple incentive scheme, regard being had to the language employed therein. In fact, by no stretch of imagination, it can be construed as a Scheme pertaining to exemption. Thus, analysed, though 25% of sales tax is paid to the State Government, the State Government instead of giving certain amount towards industrial incentive, grants incentive in the form of retention of 75% sales tax amount by the assessee. In a case of exemption, sales tax is neither collectable nor payable and if still an assessee collects any amount on the head of sales tax, that would become the price of the goods. Therefore, an incentive scheme of the present nature has to be treated on a different footing because the sales tax is collected and a part of it is retained by the assessee towards incentive which is subject to assessment under the local sales tax law and, as a matter of fact, assessments have been accordingly framed. In this factual backdrop, it has to be held that circular entitles an assessee to claim deduction towards sales tax from the assessable value. Unless the sales tax is actually paid to the Sales Tax Department of the State Government, no benefit towards excise duty can be given under the concept of transaction value under Section 4(4)(d), for it is not excludible. As is seen from the facts, 25% of the sales tax collected has been paid to the State exchequer by way of deposit. The rest of the amount has been retained by the assessee. That has to be treated as the price of the goods under the basic fundamental conception of transaction value as substituted with effect from 1.7.2000. Therefore, the assessee is bound to pay the excise duty on the said sum after the amended provision had brought on the statute book. Assessees in all the appeals are entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 12.3.1998 which protects the industrial units availing incentive scheme as there is a conceptual book adjustment of the sales tax paid to the Department. But with effect from 1.7.2000 they shall only be entitled to the benefit of the amount actually paid to the Department, i.e., 25%. Needless to emphasise, the set off shall operate only in respect of the amount that has been paid on the raw material and inputs on which the sales tax/ purchase tax has been paid. That being the position the adjudication by the tribunal is not sustainable. Similarly the determination by the original adjudicating authority requiring the assessees to deposit or pay the whole amount and the consequential imposition of penalty also cannot be held to be defensible. Therefore, we allow the appeals in part, set aside the orders passed by the tribunal as well as by the original adjudicating authority and remit the matters to the respective tribunals to adjudicate as far as excise duty is concerned in accordance with the principles set out hereinabove - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of sales tax from assessable value for excise duty purposes. 2. Nature of sales tax incentive scheme (incentive vs. exemption). 3. Applicability of CBEC Circulars. 4. Impact of amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Imposition of penalty for alleged evasion of excise duty. 6. Applicability of benefits under the Central Sales Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Sales Tax from Assessable Value for Excise Duty Purposes: The primary issue involved was whether the sales tax collected but not entirely paid to the State exchequer could be deducted from the assessable value for the purpose of central excise duty. The Tribunal had allowed such deductions, but the Revenue contested this, arguing that the sales tax collected but not paid should be included in the assessable value. 2. Nature of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme (Incentive vs. Exemption): The assessee claimed that the sales tax collected under the Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989, was an incentive and not an exemption. The Tribunal accepted this view, stating that the scheme allowed the assessee to retain 75% of the sales tax collected as an incentive, only paying 25% to the State Government. The Revenue, however, argued that this was a partial exemption, and thus the entire sales tax collected should be included in the assessable value. 3. Applicability of CBEC Circulars: The assessee relied on CBEC Circular No. 378/11-98-CX dated 12.3.1998, which allowed deduction of sales tax from the assessable value under certain conditions. The Tribunal upheld this circular, but the Revenue contended that the circular did not apply to the present case due to the nature of the incentive scheme. The Supreme Court affirmed that the circular applied to the incentive scheme, allowing the deduction of sales tax from the assessable value. 4. Impact of Amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The amendment to Section 4 of the Act, effective from 1.7.2000, introduced the concept of "transaction value," which includes the price actually paid or payable for the goods. The Supreme Court emphasized that post-amendment, only the amount of sales tax "actually paid" to the State Government could be excluded from the assessable value. Thus, the assessee could only deduct the 25% of sales tax actually paid, not the 75% retained as an incentive. 5. Imposition of Penalty for Alleged Evasion of Excise Duty: The Commissioner of Excise imposed penalties on the assessee for allegedly evading excise duty by not including the sales tax collected but not paid in the assessable value. The Tribunal set aside these penalties, and the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for re-adjudication in light of the principles laid down, particularly focusing on the period before and after the amendment to Section 4. 6. Applicability of Benefits Under the Central Sales Tax Act: The assessees also sought similar deductions under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that the circulars relied upon by the assessees did not pertain to exemptions under the Central Sales Tax Act. Thus, the benefits extended under the incentive scheme for local sales tax did not apply to central sales tax. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the original adjudicating authority. The Court clarified that for the period before 1.7.2000, the assessees were entitled to deductions as per the CBEC circular. For the period after 1.7.2000, only the sales tax actually paid could be deducted. The matter was remitted to the respective Tribunals for re-adjudication in accordance with these principles. Appeals by assessees regarding the Central Sales Tax Act were dismissed.
|
