9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 242 - AT - Central ExciseDetermination of the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Inclusion of certain expenses which as per the revenue or additional consideration received by the appellant, though not in cash but in the form of benefits made available to the appellant in terms of Rule 6 of the valuation rules - time limitation. Inclusion of certain expenses which as per the revenue or additional consideration received by the appellant, though not in cash but in the form of benefits made available to the appellant in terms of Rule 6 of the valuation rules - HELD THAT - The same issue has been considered by the Ahmadabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/S ADANI GAS LTD VERSUS C.C. - AHMEDABAD 2019 (4) TMI 999 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD placing reliance upon earlier orders, wherein the Bench has observed ' the demand on Trade Margin‟ confirmed against the Appellant is not sustainable and is required to be set aside. This decision has been followed by Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in case of BHAGYANAGAR GAS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, GUNTUR 2023 (11) TMI 1165 - CESTAT HYDERABAD where it was held that 'The Court below has erred in drawing adverse inferences as the word commission has been used instead of the word profit-margin . Further, no adverse inferences can be drawn as the RSP is fixed by the Appellant, which is a PSU and CNG being a sensitive product touching the life of common man, in various aspects.' There are no merits in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty demand. 2. Imposition of penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Determination of assessable value in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 4. Invocation of extended period of limitation. Summary: 1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty demand: The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal which upheld the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.30,74,603/- from the appellant, M/s Central U.P. Gas Limited, invoking the proviso for extended period with interest u/s 11AA (Section 11AB) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Imposition of penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944: A penalty of Rs.30,74,603/- was imposed upon the appellant u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was engaged in the compression of natural gas, resulting in Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), and was registered with the Central Excise Department, paying duty under sub-heading No.27112100 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Determination of assessable value: The appellant sold CNG through its own pumping stations and bulk buyers like BPCL and HPCL. The Revenue argued that facilities provided by bulk buyers were additional consideration for the supply of gases and should be added to the assessable value for duty payment under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal found that the sale transaction was completed at the factory gate, and expenses incurred by bulk buyers for selling from their retail outlets could not be added to the assessable value. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions, including Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Vs CCE, and concluded that the appellant's case involved a principal-to-principal transaction, and the trade margin/commission could not be included in the assessable value. 4. Invocation of extended period of limitation: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had disclosed the price structure and terms of agreements to the department through various correspondences. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable. The demand was considered time-barred, and penalties were not sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 05 June 2024.
|
