9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether certain amounts collected by separate debit notes for management service charges and advertisement expenses should be included in the assessable value for the purpose of duty payment. - Whether there was suppression of facts or intention to evade duty by the appellant. - Whether the show cause notice was barred by time. Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of Separate Debit Notes in Assessable Value The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aerated waters, collected amounts through separate debit notes for management service charges and advertisement expenses. The Department contended that these amounts should have been included in the assessable value as they enhanced the value of the goods. The appellant argued that only a part of the advertisement expenses benefited buyers and should not be included. Various legal precedents were cited to support both positions. The adjudicating authority upheld the Department's view, leading to the present appeal. Issue 2: Suppression of Facts and Intention to Evade Duty The appellant denied any suppression of facts or intention to evade duty, stating that they believed in good faith that no duty was payable on the disputed amounts based on legal decisions and the Department's past stance. The appellant highlighted that similar collections were made in previous years, and the Department was aware of them. The appellant's contention was that there was no deliberate suppression or evasion of duty. Issue 3: Barred by Time The appellant argued that the show cause notice was barred by time, citing instances from 1976 to 1979 where similar collections were made, and the Department was fully informed. The appellant emphasized that there was complete disclosure, and they were led to believe that no duty was payable on the amounts collected. This history of disclosure and Department's knowledge led to the conclusion that the show cause notice was time-barred. In the judgment, it was noted that legal precedents prior to August 1983 supported the appellant's belief that post-manufacturing costs and profits were not part of the assessable value. The Tribunal found that the appellant's belief in good faith, supported by past interactions with the Department, justified the non-inclusion of the disputed amounts in the assessable value. The Tribunal held that there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, given the history of disclosure and Department's awareness of similar collections in previous years. Consequently, the show cause notice was deemed time-barred, and the appeal was allowed without delving into the merits of the advertisement charges issue.
|
