2015 (2) TMI 1050 - HC - Customs

Invocation of extended period of limitation - Whether the CESTAT , after holding by majority that royalties/ licence fees paid on import of beta/ digibeta tapes containing films are includable in the assessable value of the tapes, is right in law in holding that the extended period of limitation is not invokable and consequently setting aside the demand of duty, interest and penalty as time barred - Held that - The Tribunal may not have referred to all the decisions, the Assessee also has been faulted in this case for not abiding by the provisions of law in the teeth of some clear judicial pronouncements, however, the question was, when the consignment or goods were imported, was the Assessee guilty of not complying with the provisions of law and willfully. That there were certain orders and the decisions of the Tribunal against the Revenue being an undisputed fact, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period could not have been invoked. If the Assessee cannot be faulted for taking advantage of the unclear or doubtful legal position, then, the demand rightly fails. The Tribunal has, by majority, held that during the period when the goods were imported in India, there were certain decisions against the Revenue. The allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, therefore, is not established and proved. In the circumstances, the third Member agreed with the Member Judicial that the order confirming the demand, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is not sustainable and must be set aside. While we can appreciate the anxiety of the Revenue, when the Assessee succeeded on technical ground, but, the doubtful legal position and which is required to be cleared by the higher Courts is something for which we cannot hold either the Assessee or the Revenue responsible. In the circumstances, we do not think that the Appeal raises any substantial question of law. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of royalties/license fees in the assessable value of imported Beta/Digibeta tapes.
2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand of duty, interest, and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Royalties/License Fees in the Assessable Value:

The core issue revolves around whether the royalties/license fees paid for the import of Beta/Digibeta tapes containing films should be included in the assessable value of the tapes. The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by majority held that such fees are includable. The Revenue argued that the payment of license fees was a condition for the delivery/sale of the recorded media, as evidenced by the agreements scrutinized during the investigation. The Managing Director's statement confirmed that the Master Tape of the film/program was supplied in Beta or Digibeta tapes, and the license fees were for a fixed period, indicating that these fees were integral to the importation process.

2. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:

The second issue pertains to whether the extended period of limitation (five years) could be invoked for the demand of duty, interest, and penalty. The Revenue contended that the Assessee willfully suppressed relevant facts to evade payment of duty, thereby justifying the extended period. The show cause notice relied on CBEC Circular No. 86 of 2002 and alleged that the Assessee declared only the cost of the media and suppressed the license fee amounts.

However, the Tribunal found that there was a doubt about the legal position prior to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Living Media India Ltd. The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions which were against the Revenue, indicating that the legal position was not settled. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee could not be deemed guilty of willful misstatement or suppression of facts, and the extended period could not be invoked. The third Member's opinion concurred with the Member Judicial, emphasizing that during the relevant period, there were decisions against the Revenue, which created a doubt about the legal position.

Conclusion:

The High Court examined the Tribunal's findings and upheld the conclusion that the demand was time-barred. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the legal position was unclear during the relevant period, and there were Tribunal decisions against the Revenue. Consequently, the Assessee could not be faulted for not including the royalties/license fees in the assessable value, given the doubtful legal position. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that it did not raise any substantial question of law.

This judgment underscores the importance of clear legal guidelines and the implications of judicial precedents on the interpretation of tax laws. The Court's reliance on the principles established in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture vs. Commissioner of Central Excise further reinforced the necessity of proving willful suppression for invoking the extended period of limitation.