2018 (1) TMI 1257 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944 - inclusion of the amortization cost of moulds tools in the assessable value of the assessee s final product - Held that - admittedly during the relevant period the issue was not free from doubt and there were decisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assessees - In such a scenario the appellant cannot be held guilt of any wrong doing by not including amortization cost of the moulds/tools in the assessable value of their final product - penalty set aside - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the penalty of ?1,00,000 imposed under Rule 173Q by the Commissioner. The issue revolved around the inclusion of the amortization cost of moulds and tools in the assessable value of the final product. The Tribunal had previously held that the amortization cost should be added to the assessable value. However, due to inaccuracies in the figures related to the supplied moulds by another company, the matter was remanded for quantification of the demand.

The Commissioner confirmed the demand as per the Tribunal's earlier order but imposed additional penalties. A penalty of ?44,339 was imposed under Section 11 AC, and a penalty of ?1,00,000 was imposed under Rule 173Q. The appellant contested only the penalty under Rule 173Q, arguing that during the relevant period (January 93 to August 97), there were conflicting decisions and uncertainties regarding the issue. The appellant claimed that they could not be held at fault for not including the amortization cost in the assessable value, especially since the matter was only settled after a decision by the Larger Bench.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, noting that there were uncertainties and conflicting decisions during the relevant period. The law was clarified only after the decision by the Larger Bench. Considering that the appellant had already paid most of the demands and was penalized under Section 11 AC, the Tribunal found that a separate penalty under Rule 173Q was not justified. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside, while the demands confirmed, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC were upheld as uncontested by the appellant.