1999 (11) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Inclusion of financial charges in assessable value of goods.
2. Invocation of extended period for show cause notices.
3. Allegation of suppression by the department.
4. Nature of financial charges as additional consideration.
5. Refund of financial charges for prompt payment.
6. Requirement of filing invoices with RT12 returns.
7. Arguments raised by the revenue against the impugned order.

Issue 1: Inclusion of Financial Charges:
The case involved the inclusion of financial charges in the assessable value of goods. The appellant argued that the charges were collected for delayed payments and were not part of the assessable value. The Commissioner examined invoices and credit notes, concluding that the charges were akin to interest on delayed payments. The Commissioner found that the charges were not included in the assessable value declared by the assessee and were considered as interest on delayed payment, not a part of the goods' sale value.

Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period:
The Commissioner observed that the department could not allege suppression as the invoices were enclosed with RT12 returns duly assessed by the department. Consequently, the Commissioner dropped proceedings initiated under the show cause notices. However, an appeal was filed following a direction by the CBEC under 35E(1).

Issue 3: Allegation of Suppression:
The appellant claimed that the department had no indication of the invoice contents before a certain date, arguing against allegations of suppression. The Commissioner's observation that invoices were part of the RT12 returns documentation indicated that the assessing officers were aware of the invoices, countering the suppression claim.

Issue 4: Nature of Financial Charges:
The appellant contended that the financial charges were an additional consideration rather than related to delayed payments. They argued that different rates of interest were mentioned in the invoices for delayed payments, suggesting a separate consideration. However, the Commissioner upheld that the charges were interest on delayed payments.

Issue 5: Refund for Prompt Payment:
The respondent argued that the financial charges, though charged uniformly, were refunded for prompt payments. The Commissioner accepted this claim after verification. The possibility of claiming prompt payment discounts as refunded money collected as interest was raised, but it was not a part of the original or appellate deliberations.

Issue 6: Filing Invoices with RT12 Returns:
Although not a departmental requirement before a specific date, a practice existed where invoices were examined by assessing officers. The Commissioner's observation that invoices were part of RT12 returns documentation indicated that assessing officers had access to the invoices. This fact was reflected in the replies to the department's questionnaire for the assessee filing classification lists.

Issue 7: Arguments Raised by Revenue:
The revenue's arguments were addressed in the impugned order itself, with the Tribunal upholding the order and dismissing the appeal. The impugned order's findings and conclusions were considered valid, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the inclusion of financial charges in the assessable value of goods, the invocation of the extended period, and the absence of suppression allegations. The nature of financial charges as interest on delayed payments was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, rejecting the revenue's arguments.

← Previous Next →