Issues Involved: 1. Revenue-neutrality and intention to evade duty. 2. Demand of duty beyond six months. 3. Issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) and imposition of penalty u/s 11AC. 4. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 214/86. 5. Inclusion of cost of free components in assessable value.
Summary:
1. Revenue-neutrality and intention to evade duty: The Tribunal examined whether the existence of an alternative procedure that could have resulted in Revenue-neutrality negates the intention to evade duty. The assessee argued that since the duty paid would be available as Modvat credit to the buyer, there was no intention to evade duty. However, the Tribunal endorsed the view in the case of M/s. International Auto Products (P) Ltd., holding that Revenue-neutrality must be established in the facts of each case and not merely by showing the availability of an alternate scheme.
2. Demand of duty beyond six months: The appellants contended that the demand for duty beyond six months was unsustainable due to the absence of intention to evade payment. They claimed a bona fide belief that the cost of free components supplied by MUL need not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal, however, found that the substantial duty differential indicated an intention to evade duty, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1).
3. Issuance of SCN and imposition of penalty u/s 11AC: The appellants argued that since they had debited the differential duty before the issuance of the SCN, there was no non-levy/short levy at the time of the SCN. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the occurrence of non-levy/short levy on the relevant date justifies the issuance of the SCN. The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of penalty u/s 11AC, as the ingredients for invoking this provision were identical to those for the proviso to Section 11A(1).
4. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 214/86: The appellants claimed they could have availed of Exemption Notification No. 214/86, which would have allowed duty-free clearance. The Tribunal dismissed this claim due to the lack of evidence showing that MUL had given the required undertaking under the notification. The Tribunal held that the mere availability of an alternate scheme does not negate the intention to evade duty if the scheme opted for was misused.
5. Inclusion of cost of free components in assessable value: The Tribunal held that the cost of components received free of cost from MUL should be included in the assessable value of the final products. The appellants' failure to do so and the subsequent substantial duty differential indicated an intention to evade duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessable value must include all costs, including those of free components, as per the settled legal position.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that: (a) Revenue-neutrality must be established based on the facts of each case. (b) Misuse of the opted scheme negates the defense of an alternate scheme. (c) Revenue-neutrality must relate to the credit available to the assessee, not the buyer. (d) The view in M/s. International Auto Products (P) Ltd. was endorsed, holding that once duty is paid, all consequences must be accepted.
The reference application was answered accordingly.
9911796707
