9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 157 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of Central Excise Duty - Department was of the view that the Central Excise duty is required to be paid at ZTVL, since the transaction between IOCL and IBP are settled at ZTVL - Held that - The Revenue s allegation that the appellant has realized the amount as per ZTVL from the subsidiary, has not been supported by any documentary evidences on record. In the absence of any documentary report for such allegation, the demand for differential duty based only on allegation, which is not supported by any documentary evidences, cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Dispute over Central Excise duty payment based on ZTVL and ZAVL values in invoices for clearances made to subsidiary, demand for duty, interest, and penalty under Central Excise Rules, 2002, challenge to the Order-in-Original Nos. 04-06/MP/Commr./2007 and 08/MP/Commr./2008, applicability of Central Excise Valuation Rules, interpretation of ZTVL as notional import price, lack of documentary evidence supporting Revenue's allegation.
Analysis: 1. Dispute over Central Excise Duty Payment: The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original Nos. 04-06/MP/Commr./2007 and 08/MP/Commr./2008 concerning the period from 01.09.2005 to 30.11.2006 and 16.03.2007 to 30.06.2007 for clearances made to M/s IBP Ltd., a subsidiary of the appellant. The invoices indicated two values - ZTVL (import parity price) and ZAVL (lower price), with duty paid at ZAVL. The Department contended duty should be paid at ZTVL as per transactions between IOCL and IBP. Show-cause notices led to confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, challenged in the appeals. 2. Interpretation of Invoices and Valuation: The appellant argued that payment received was per ZAVL, not ZTVL, which was mentioned as a notional import price. The Revenue alleged the appellant received amounts as per ZTVL from its subsidiary, but the appellant denied this, stating no evidence supported this claim. The dispute centered on whether duty should be paid at ZTVL or ZAVL based on the settlement between the appellant and IBP, with the Revenue relying on the Larger Bench decision in Ispat Industries Vs. Commr. of Central Excise. 3. Applicability of Central Excise Valuation Rules: The valuation of clearances between the appellant and its subsidiary fell under Central Excise Valuation Rules due to being within the purview of Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue's demand for duty at ZTVL was based on the settlement between the parties as per ZTVL, but the appellant argued that ZTVL was not the actual price realized and was used for evaluation purposes only. 4. Lack of Documentary Evidence: The Tribunal found that the Revenue's claim that the appellant received amounts as per ZTVL from the subsidiary lacked documentary support. Without evidence to substantiate this claim, the demand for differential duty solely based on an unsupported allegation was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, both impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, highlighting the importance of documentary evidence in such disputes.
|
