Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 51 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Receipt of additional amount - bonus - Held that - Even though the allegation of Revenue is that bonus is consideration otherwise received by appellant from Shree Cement Ltd., there is no nexus brought out by Revenue to prove that the said consideration was received in consideration of depression of the assessable value or any extraneous consideration received in relation to clearance of goods - In absence of such element, it is difficult for Revenue to allege that the incentives which was received towards efficiency of the appellant was an incentive but not sale price to levy duty - appeal allowed.
Issues: Alleged depression of assessable value due to bonus received from a contract.
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appellant, a company with manufacturing and service providing divisions, received a bonus from a contract with Shree Cement Ltd. The Revenue alleged that this bonus was an arrangement to depress the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellant. However, the appellant argued that the bonus was an incentive for fulfilling the contractual obligation before schedule, not related to the assessable value of goods. The Revenue cited a previous case, Neo Carbons Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, where extra consideration was held to be part of the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that in the Neo Carbons case, there was an additional amount received, unlike in the present case where no price was received for goods supplied for the contract. Therefore, the principle from the Neo Carbons case did not apply here. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to establish a nexus between the bonus received and the alleged depression of assessable value or any extraneous consideration related to goods clearance. Without this link, the Revenue could not argue that the bonus, received for the appellant's efficiency, was a sale price subject to duty. As a result, the appeals were successful, and the allegations were dismissed.
|