2016 (11) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - receipt of additional consideration through Debit Notes - Held that - The debit notes raised by the respondent in the case in hand are equivalent to supplementary invoices. It cannot be the case that supplementary invoices raised by assessee in pursuance to the escalation clause despite increase in value, Central Excise duty is not payable. The same analogy will apply in the case in hand. In view of this we hold that the respondent is liable to discharge duty on the debit notes raised by them for the period post July 2000 - the duty liability cannot be demanded entirely on the amounts of debit notes so raised; cum-duty benefit needs to be extended to them. For limited purpose of requantifying the demand of duty for the post July 2000 by extending the benefit cum-duty, we remand this matter to the lower authorities to ascertain correct quantification of demand of duty along with interest thereof. As regards the penalty, we find that the issue is of interpretation of the provisions of Section 4 hence the question of visiting the respondent with penalty does not arise. The appeal is disposed of partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise duty on debit notes raised for excess material used in manufacturing.
2. Applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on determining transaction value.
3. Assessment of duty liability on debit notes post July 2000.
4. Consideration of cum-duty benefit in quantifying demand of duty.
5. Imposition of penalty based on interpretation of Section 4.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involved a dispute regarding the Central Excise duty liability on debit notes raised by the respondent for excess material used in manufacturing Electrical Transmission Towers. The Revenue contended that the excess material increased the cost and value of the towers, necessitating the inclusion of additional consideration under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent argued that the price/value should be determined based on the contract between the parties, emphasizing the phrase "actually paid or payable" in the transaction value definition. The Tribunal examined the facts and legal provisions to reach a decision.

During the period from April 1999 to June 2000, the Tribunal found that the clearance made by the respondent was at the contracted price, which constituted the normal price under Section 4(1)(b). Therefore, no addition was required even if a debit note was issued for excess material consumed during this period. However, post July 2000, the Tribunal noted the amendment in Section 4 to introduce the concept of transaction value. The definition of transaction value encompassed any amount payable for the goods sold, leading to the conclusion that duty was demandable on the debit notes raised for excess material post July 2000.

The Tribunal held that the respondent was liable to discharge duty on the debit notes equivalent to supplementary invoices, as they increased the assessable value of the cleared goods. It emphasized that even if supplementary invoices were raised due to escalation clauses, Central Excise duty remained payable. The Tribunal directed a remand to quantify the duty demand post July 2000 by extending cum-duty benefit to the respondent for correct assessment.

Regarding penalties, the Tribunal determined that the issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 4, thus penalty imposition was not warranted. The appeal was disposed of partly in favor of the assessee and partly in favor of the Revenue, with no specific observations recorded on the citations presented by both sides due to the unique factual circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the duty liability on debit notes for excess material used in manufacturing, emphasizing the application of Section 4 and transaction value determination. The judgment provided insights into the assessment of duty post July 2000 and the consideration of cum-duty benefit, while addressing the penalty aspect based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.

← Previous Next →