2015 (8) TMI 807 - AT - Central Excise

Evasion of Central Excise duty - Registration not taken - Held that - Review petition filed by the Revenue in Maruti Udyog case was dismissed by the Hon ble apex Court as reported in 2004 (12) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum no longer exists. As regards the contention that the ratio of Amrit Agro Industries Ltd 2007 (3) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . would apply to the fact of the present case, from the records, it is evident that in the purchase orders and invoices were raised, the appellant had indicated that the price charged is inclusive of all taxes. If that be so, the price charged has to be taken as cum tax and the benefit of Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) has to be granted to the appellant, which the adjudicating authority has been done in the present case. - Infirmity in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original No.24/2003 dated 30/09/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.
- Evasion of Central Excise duty by M/s. J.K. Furnishers.
- Treatment of total value received as cum-duty-price.
- Admissibility of review petition in Maruti Udyog case.
- Application of the ratio of Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. to the present case.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, regarding evasion of Central Excise duty by M/s. J.K. Furnishers. The respondent did not discharge excise duty liability on furniture sold to customers, indicating in sales documents that the amount charged was inclusive of all taxes. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demands, treating the received amount as cum tax under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the total value should not be treated as cum-duty-price based on a Supreme Court judgment. They sought review based on a subsequent order admitting a review petition. The Revenue contended that the law had not attained finality due to the review petition.

In response, the Ld. Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, citing a Supreme Court decision in Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent supported the adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the review petition in the Maruti Udyog case had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Regarding the application of the Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had clearly indicated in purchase orders and invoices that the price charged was inclusive of all taxes. Therefore, the price should be considered as cum tax, entitling the appellant to the benefit under Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the adjudicating authority's order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority, ruling in favor of the respondent M/s. J.K. Furnishers based on the pricing information provided in the sales documents and invoices, which indicated the inclusion of all taxes in the charged amount.