9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 716 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - inclusion of design/ art work/ photo film is developed by them - charges recovered separately - Held that - The issue involved is no longer res-integra. In the appellants own case, this tribunal has decided the matter for the past period M/S. SHOGINI TECHNOARTS PVT. LTD., SHRI VIJAY M. ATHAWALE, SHRI VINAYAK M. ATHAWALE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III 2018 (4) TMI 759 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that The order passed by the Tribunal was not challenged by the Appellant or the revenue and has thus attained finality. Therefore no fault can be found with the method of such valuation - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty 2. Reduction of penalty imposed 3. Amortization of design/artwork/photo film charges for PCBs 4. Challenge to valuation method 5. Applicability of normal price concept 6. Justification of penalty imposition Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty: The order confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of ?13,18,365 against M/s Shogini Techno Arts Pvt Ltd for five show cause notices. The duty amount involved in each notice was detailed along with the period involved. The total duty paid under protest for the period was appropriated and adjusted against the confirmed duty amount. Interest was ordered to be recovered on the differential duty amount for the specified period. Additionally, a penalty of ?13,18,365 was imposed on the assessee in accordance with the Central Excise Rules and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Reduction of penalty imposed: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order confirming the demand of duty and interest but reduced the penalty imposed to ?10,000. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal challenging the penalty reduction. Amortization of design/artwork/photo film charges for PCBs: The appellants manufactured printed circuit boards (PCBs) based on design, artwork, and photo film developed by themselves or supplied by customers free of cost. Charges recovered for development over and above the cost of PCB were considered part of the assessable value for duty computation. However, when the design/artwork/photo film was supplied free of cost by customers, the charges/cost was not amortized for inclusion in the assessable value of the PCBs. Challenge to valuation method: The appellants challenged the lump sum addition of total costs without amortization, arguing that after amortization, no additional cost needed to be added to the PCBs. They contended that paying duty on the cost of their own drawings was incorrect and baseless. The demand based on a tentative value was deemed unsustainable, and reliance on a Cost Accountant Certificate for valuation was questioned. Applicability of normal price concept: The appellants argued that the normal price concept applied by the authorities was not applicable for valuation after a specific date. Justification of penalty imposition: The appellants contested the justification for imposing the penalty, claiming that there was no proposal for it in the show cause notice and that penalties could not be imposed without confiscation of goods. The issue of penalty imposition was a key point of contention in the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing previous decisions and the normal period of limitation for the demands. The decision was based on earlier orders of the CESTAT, which found no merit in the appeal given the circumstances and precedents.
|
