2007 (12) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Enhancement of rate of duty sales realization by the appellant consisted of assessable value excise duty - appellant wants the amount recovered by them initially as the AV to be treated as cum duty price which is devoid of any logic Dept. has correctly taken the entire sale proceeds as cum-duty price & worked backwards duty payable at 25% - interest payable shall be for the revised amount as arrived at by Asst. Commissioner on the basis of the Tribunal s order

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under chapter heading 6309.06 or 3926 for duty calculation.
2. Determination of duty payable based on cum-duty price and interest liability.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in the appeal revolves around the classification of Tarpaulin for duty calculation. The Department argued that the entire amount collected from customers should be treated as cum-duty price, resulting in a duty payable of Rs. 2,33,81,319, with an adjustment for the duty already paid. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the assessable value of Rs. 10,82,46,752 should be considered as cum-duty value, leading to a duty payable of Rs. 1,29,89,508. The Tribunal upheld the Department's approach, considering the sales realization by the appellant as assessable value plus excise duty, and deemed the Department's method as reasonable and legally sound.

2. The second issue pertains to the determination of duty payable based on the cum-duty price and the interest liability. The Tribunal clarified that the interest should be demanded from the date of non-payment till the date of actual payment, following the revised duty amount as per their order. The Commissioner's decision on interest liability was supported by the Tribunal, citing Section 11AB for payment of interest even if duty became payable before the Finance Act, 2001. The Tribunal emphasized that the interest payable should be calculated based on the revised duty amount determined after considering the cum-duty price benefit. The appeal was disposed of based on these terms, upholding the Department's approach and the Commissioner's decision on interest liability.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.