9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 784 - HC - Central ExciseInvocation of extended period of limitation - Valuation - inclusion of concession of sales tax retained by the assessee - the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT is referred to - Held that - CBEC Circular dated 30.06.2000 provides that any amount of concession on sales tax retained by the respondent is not required to be added in the assessable value. The decision in the case of Life Long India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2012 (3) TMI 349 - CESTAT NEW DELHI is relied upon. Assessee cannot be said to be at fault. No substantial question of law arises - extended period of limitation was not available - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the CESTAT was right in dropping the demand towards duty pertaining to the extended period of limitation? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the extended period of limitation was not invokable due to suppression of facts? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dropping the demand towards duty despite non-payment of Sales tax/VAT amounts? 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in relying on previous judgments regarding sales tax concessions? 5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty when the sales tax concession was not added to the assessable value? 7. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty for the period within limitation? Analysis: 1. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding dropping the demand towards duty for the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable due to certain circumstances. The appellant argued that despite the issue being decided in favor of the assessee, the extended period of limitation should have been permitted based on Supreme Court judgments. However, the Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision. 2. The Tribunal justified its decision by referring to a CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal orders which stated that any amount of concession on sales tax retained by the assessee is not required to be added in the assessable value. The Tribunal held that due to conflicting views and the negation of previous decisions by the Supreme Court, the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Consequently, the demand and penalties were set aside, as the assessee was not at fault based on the circumstances presented. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal orders, which favored the assessee's position regarding the sales tax concessions. As the Tribunal found no fault on the part of the assessee, the extended period of limitation was deemed not applicable. Therefore, the demand towards duty and penalties were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 4. The Tribunal's reliance on previous judgments regarding sales tax concessions was crucial in determining the outcome of the case. Despite the appellant's arguments based on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal's interpretation of the CBEC Circular and past Tribunal decisions played a significant role in the decision to drop the demand towards duty for the extended period of limitation. 5. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent was justified based on the findings that the sales tax concession was not added to the assessable value. This aspect, along with the interpretation of relevant Circulars and past decisions, led to the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the respondent. 6. The Tribunal's justification for setting aside the penalty for the period within limitation was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the non-inclusion of sales tax concessions in the assessable value. This, combined with the conflicting views presented, led to the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the dropping of the demand towards duty for the extended period of limitation.
|
