9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 257 - AT - Central ExciseQuantum of duty computation/the cum-duty price - Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 provides for valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. Under Section 4(1), the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to the value which is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. Section 4(4)(d)(ii) states that value in relation to any excisable goods does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods and, subject to such rules as may be made, the trade discount, etc., is also to be allowed as a deduction. Following the revenue s proposal of valuation under section 4, after extending the benefit of cum duty price in this matter the duty liability would come down to Rs. 5,42,846/- - in terms of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the correct differential duty demand comes to Rs.5,42,845.96 which stands confirmed. The remaining demand of duty, corresponding penalty and interest, if any, are set aside - appeal is partly allowed.
Issues:
Quantum of duty computation/the cum-duty price under Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944. Analysis: Issue 1: Quantum of Duty Computation The case was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court focusing on the quantum of duty computation and the cum-duty price. The CESTAT was directed to decide the appeal limited to this question following a specific direction from the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that excise duty, sales tax, and other taxes included in the wholesale price should be excluded from the assessable value, as per Section 4 of the Act. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their claim. Issue 2: Arguments and Submissions The appellant's representative argued that the wholesale price should be considered the value for excise duty levy, but the taxes included in the price should be excluded. On the other hand, the revenue representative opposed this contention. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the benefit of cum-duty price should be extended to the appellant, in line with the Supreme Court's decision and other relevant judgments cited. Issue 3: Assessment and Calculation The Tribunal examined the documents and the Chartered Accountant certificate provided by the appellant. It was noted that the appellant had extended discounts through credit notes to customers during the disputed period. The correct assessable value under Section 4 was determined by considering the net amount realized by the appellant for sales, after deducting discounts. The Tribunal calculated the differential excise duty payable by the appellant, which resulted in a reduced duty liability. The correct method of working out the differential excise duty was detailed based on the calculations presented. Issue 4: Decision and Conclusion After thorough analysis, the Tribunal set aside the remaining demand of duty, penalty, and interest. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the correct differential duty demand. The judgment was pronounced in open court on a specific date. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944, and the application of relevant legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the quantum of duty computation and the cum-duty price under Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944, as per the directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the arguments presented by both parties during the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad.
|
