2000 (11) TMI 549 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of personal penalty based on under-valuation of goods manufactured, the validity of commission received by the appellants, and the imposition of penalty and interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Confirmation of Duty Demand and Imposition of Penalty:
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing specialized items sold to customers like M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML). The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellants and imposed a personal penalty for under-valuation of goods manufactured for BEML. The dispute arose from the commission received by the appellants from BEML, which the adjudicating authority considered as part of the value of goods sold. However, the appellants argued that the commission was for procuring orders, not linked to the value of goods. They contended that prices at which goods were sold to BEML were fixed by BEML, not the appellants, and there was no nexus between manufacturer's prices and trader's prices.

Validity of Commission Received:
The appellants received a commission from BEML for marketing spare parts and procuring orders. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties clarified that the commission was related to marketing activities, not the value of goods manufactured by the appellants. The Tribunal held that the commission received for trading activities, including non-manufactured items, should not be added to the assessable value of the goods. The Tribunal distinguished the case from a Supreme Court decision involving commission paid to a selling agent.

Imposition of Penalty and Interest:
Regarding the imposition of penalty and interest under sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal noted that the relevant provisions were effective from a later date than the period in question. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty and interest was not maintainable for the period preceding the introduction of these provisions. The Tribunal found that the demand was barred by limitation and allowed the appeals on both merit and limitation grounds, setting aside the impugned order entirely.