9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 97 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Excise Duty - discount earned for early payment of Sales Tax - additional consideration or not - HELD THAT - The entire issue in the present case is for the period prior to 01.07.2012 from which the law in respect of valuation was amended and concept of transaction value was introduce. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd 2014 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT and M/s Super Syncotex (India) Ltd 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT are considering the issue after the amendments were made in the law regarding valuation. Above fact has been noted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S. SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD. OTHERS 2015 (4) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has held the assessee/respondent herein will not be liable to pay any excise duty on the sales tax amount which was retained under the Incentive Scheme up to 30th June, 2000. However, this component of sales tax which was retained by the assessee after 1-7-2000 shall be includible in arriving at the transaction value and sales tax shall be paid thereon. There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the finality of rulings, applicability of circulars, inclusion of sales tax in assessable value, limitation period for demand, and the impact of law amendments on valuation. Finality of rulings and circulars: The judgment discusses the finality of rulings in cases of M/s MarutiUdyog Ltd and M/s Super Syncotex (India) Ltd, which have been appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The circulars, such as Circular Nos. 378/11/98-CX and 679/70/2002-CX, are also considered in relation to the rulings. The Tribunal concludes that the circulars and rulings do not support the appellant's case. Inclusion of sales tax in assessable value: The judgment refers to various cases, such as Eastern Setcrete Pvt Ltd, Auto Control (P) Ltd, and Bharat Roll Industry (Pvt) Ltd, where it was held that sales tax collected but not paid to the department should be included in the assessable value for excise duty purposes. These cases provide support for the view that sales tax collected from buyers but not paid is required to form part of the assessable value. Limitation period for demand: The appellant argued that the demand is hit by limitation as the pre-payment of sales tax pertained to certain years, and the Show Cause Notice was issued later. However, the Tribunal rejects this argument, stating that the demand was issued within the limitation period from the date of payment of sales tax, which led to the accrual of the balance amount as additional consideration. Impact of law amendments on valuation: The judgment notes that the entire issue in the case pertains to the period before the law amendments regarding valuation were introduced. It references the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd, which discusses the amendments to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and their impact on the valuation of excisable goods. The Court's decision clarifies the treatment of sales tax incentives under the unamended and amended provisions, emphasizing the inclusion of retained sales tax in the transaction value post-amendment. Conclusion: In light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the amendments to Section 4 and the treatment of sales tax incentives, the Tribunal finds no merit in the impugned order and allows the appeal.
|
