2016 (6) TMI 442 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Correct quantum of exclusion towards sales tax from the transaction value for Central Excise purpose - allegation of suppression of facts - penalty imposed - Held that - The principle laid down in CCE, Jaipur - II vs. Super Synotex (India) Ltd 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT is equally applicable to the facts of the present case. The legal position that emerges is that if the assessee charged and collected amount towards sales tax but not paid the said full amount to the State, the amount retained under whatever name shall not be eligible for exclusion in terms of Section 4 (3) (d). On perusal of the original order and the impugned order, we find no reasoning to support the allegation of suppression of facts. The only reference made by the lower Authorities that the improper valuation was revealed during the course of audit and scrutiny of sales tax returns and as such it was concluded that the assessee had intention to evade Central Excise Duty. We find that considering the above factual background, the invocation of extended period in the present case is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the demand of differential duty is to be restricted to the normal period which shall be payable with applicable interest by the appellants. On the same reasoning, we find imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount is also not sustainable. Since, the excise duty applicable on retained sales tax amount has not been collected by the assessee from the buyers, they are eligible for calculation of duty liability taking the differential value as cum duty value. The demand shall be restricted to the normal period and the duty will be calculated on the basis of cum duty valuation. The penalty imposed also is set aside.

Issues:
1. Correct assessable value for discharging Central Excise duty.
2. Eligibility of abatement under Section 4 (3) (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Time bar for the demand.
4. Allegation of suppression or willful misstatement in calculating assessable value.
5. Imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Correct assessable value for discharging Central Excise duty
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand of &8377; 4,04,037 due to alleged under-valuation of excisable goods. The dispute arose from the appellant's claim of abatement of sales tax for Central Excise valuation. The appellant argued that the tax paid on inputs should be deducted from the sales tax payable on the final product. However, the Tribunal held that only the sales tax actually paid on the final product can be excluded for Central Excise valuation, as per the decision in CCE vs. Super Synotex. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the tax paid on inputs should be considered as payment of tax on the final product for abatement purposes.

Issue 2: Eligibility of abatement under Section 4 (3) (d)
The Tribunal examined the scope of abatement under Section 4 (3) (d) in light of the appellant's argument that the tax paid on inputs should be considered for abatement. Referring to the decision in CCE vs. Super Synotex, the Tribunal emphasized that only the sales tax actually paid to the State and not retained by the appellant can be excluded from the transaction value. The Tribunal concluded that any amount collected but not paid to the State shall not be eligible for abatement under Section 4 (3) (d).

Issue 3: Time bar for the demand
The appellant contended that the demand was hit by the time bar, citing decisions favoring the assessee in similar matters. The Tribunal noted that until the law was clarified by the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Super Synotex, there were disputes regarding the quantum of abatement for assessees availing incentive schemes under sales tax. Considering the legal position and lack of evidence supporting suppression or willful misstatement, the Tribunal held that the extended period for demand was not legally sustainable.

Issue 4: Allegation of suppression or willful misstatement
The Tribunal found no reasoning to support the allegation of suppression of facts, as the improper valuation was discovered during audit and scrutiny of sales tax returns. The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of the extended period for demand was not justified, restricting the demand to the normal period with applicable interest. Consequently, the imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 5: Imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount
The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed, considering that the excise duty applicable on the retained sales tax amount was not collected from buyers. Therefore, the duty liability was to be calculated based on the differential value as cum duty value, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on merits, restricting the demand to the normal period and calculating the duty based on cum duty valuation while setting aside the penalty imposed.

← Previous Next →