2012 (4) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Differential duty - Receipt of advances - Held that - The appellant has not even made an attempt to show that the advances received by the respondent from Sigma had a bearing on the assessable value of the goods. No nexus between the two has been established - The duty paid by the respondent on the assessable value based on the agreed price is in order and no further amount of duty is liable to be paid - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation dispute regarding duty on goods supplied to Sigma Marine and Protective coatings India Ltd., inclusion of notional interest on advances in assessable value, applicability of relevant case laws.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the appeal filed by the department was directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the original authority's decision in a valuation dispute related to goods manufactured by the respondent out of raw material supplied by Sigma Marine and Protective coatings India Ltd. The department alleged that the respondent had received advances from Sigma, and notional interest on these advances should be included in the assessable value of the goods. The original authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was contested by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on the Supreme Court's decision in VST Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad 1998. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not pass a speaking order on the valuation issue and blindly followed the Supreme Court's judgment without discussion. The Revenue argued that the advances received by the respondent were part of the consideration for the selling price of the goods. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the appellant by binding case law and that no nexus between the advances and the assessable value of the goods had been established. Therefore, the duty paid by the respondent based on the agreed price was deemed in order, and no further duty amount was liable to be paid as per the relevant case laws cited by the respondent's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.