2019 (7) TMI 1004 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of storage charges in assessable value - post manufacturing activity or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue is covered by this Tribunal Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Victory Electricals Ltd. 2013 (12) TMI 81 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that The value payable in a case where liquidated damages is applied would therefore be the consequent value and this would constitute the transaction value . Time limitation - HELD THAT - Since the issue involved is interpretation of Section 4, therefore, there were various contrary decisions and for this reason also the matter was referred to Larger bench and finally in 2013, the Larger Bench has decided the issue and in the present case, the period involved is November 2004 to December 2005 and SCN was issued in June 2009. In these facts, suppression of fact on the part of the appellant cannot be alleged. Hence the demand of duty of storage charges is hit by limitation. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of storage charges in the assessable value.
2. Applicability of limitation on demand for storage charges.
3. Demand of air lifting charges.
4. Interpretation of valuation provision.

Analysis:
1. Inclusion of storage charges in the assessable value:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of storage charges in the assessable value of goods supplied by the appellant. The appellant argued that the storage charges were post-manufacturing and should not be included in the assessable value. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their argument. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a Larger Bench Judgment and found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for duty on storage charges.

2. Applicability of limitation on demand for storage charges:
The Tribunal considered the issue of limitation in the demand for storage charges. The appellant contended that there was no malafide intention in not including the storage charges in the assessable value as the purchase order was amended by the buyer. The Tribunal observed that the issue involved interpretation of Section 4, leading to various contrary decisions. Due to the legal complexities and the fact that the matter was referred to a Larger Bench, the Tribunal held that the demand for duty on storage charges was hit by limitation and set it aside.

3. Demand of air lifting charges:
The appellant did not contest the demand for air lifting charges, which was upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the demand for air lifting charges was confirmed.

4. Interpretation of valuation provision:
The issue of interpretation of the valuation provision was raised during the proceedings. The appellant and the Revenue cited relevant judgments to support their arguments. The Tribunal considered the legal precedents and the conflicting decisions on the matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal relied on the Larger Bench Judgment and decided the issue in favor of the appellant, partially allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for air lifting charges but set aside the demand for duty on storage charges based on the interpretation of valuation provisions and the applicability of limitation. The penalty on the appellant for air lifting charges was upheld.