9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 981 - HC - Central ExciseWhether the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in dropping the demand towards pertaining to the extended period of limitation when it had itself relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi 2014 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable value - Held that - once the assessee was found to be at fault in view of the law laid down by Hon ble the Supreme Court, the extended period of limitation could have been permitted. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue of limitation that circular dated 30.06.2000 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs providing that any amount of concession on sales tax retained by the assessee is not required to be added in the assessable value and an earlier order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee has also been referred to. Hence, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault and the extended period of limitation was not available. - Decided against the Revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Dropping of demand towards duty pertaining to the extended period of limitation. 2. Justification for dropping the demand towards duty despite non-payment of Sales tax/VAT to the government. 3. Correctness of dropping the demand despite reliance on previous judgments. 4. Requirement to add concession on sales tax in the assessable value. 5. Setting aside of penalty imposed on the respondent. 6. Justification for setting aside the penalty for the period within limitation. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case was whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in dropping the demand towards duty pertaining to the extended period of limitation. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had considered the issue of limitation and referred to a CBEC Circular dated 30.06.2000, which stated that any concession on sales tax retained by the respondent need not be added to the assessable value. The Tribunal held that since the CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal orders favored the respondent, the extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the demand for that period was set aside. 2. Another issue raised was the justification for dropping the demand towards duty despite the finding that the Sales tax/VAT amounts collected by the assessee were not paid to the government. The Tribunal had relied on previous judgments, but the High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision based on the CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal orders in favor of the respondent. 3. The High Court also considered whether the Tribunal was correct in dropping the demand towards duty despite relying on judgments that suggested adding the sales tax concession retained by the respondent to the assessable value. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the interpretation of the CBEC Circular, which favored the respondent. 4. The issue of whether any concession on sales tax retained by the respondent should be added to the assessable value as per the CBEC Circular was also discussed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the Circular and previous Tribunal orders that supported the respondent's position. 5. Regarding the penalty imposed on the respondent, the High Court examined whether the Tribunal was justified in setting it aside. The Court noted that since the demand towards duty for the extended period was dropped, the penalties were also not imposable, as per the Tribunal's decision. 6. Lastly, the High Court considered the justification for setting aside the penalty for the period within limitation. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, stating that based on the facts and the interpretation of the CBEC Circular, the respondent could not be considered at fault, and therefore, the penalties were not applicable for that period. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of the CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal orders in favor of the respondent.
|
