2013 (1) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/s 11AC Extended period of limitation - Valuation Assessable value - Inclusion of the engraving charges in the value of final products Assessee was purchasing screens and get the same engraved on behalf of the suppliers of the grey fabrics and the amount that has been received for the work of engraving and developing charges, are actual charges Assessee contended that they were in bona fide belief that amount received for engraving charges were not to be included as they are reimbursable charges - Held that - The statement of Office Superintendent lends credence to the bona fide belief of the assessee that the amount charged being not for manufacturing activity is not liable to be included in valuation of final products. Therefore, demand confirmed by the lower authority by invoking extended period on limitation, cannot be sustained. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Cross objection filed by the assessee in support of penalty findings.
2. Challenge to show cause notice including penalty imposition.
3. Appeal against the first appellate authority's decision on duty, interest, and penalty.
4. Dispute on inclusion of engraving charges in the value of final products.
5. Assessment of bona fide belief regarding non-inclusion of engraving charges.
6. Invocation of extended period due to non-declaration of engraving charges.

Analysis:
1. The cross objection filed by the assessee supported the penalty findings in their favor, leading to its disposal without further contestation.

2. The challenge against the show cause notice, including the proposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was addressed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties after following natural justice principles. The appellant then appealed to the first appellate authority, which upheld the duty and interest demands but reduced the penalty. The appellant contested the confirmation of the demand, interest, and penalty, while the revenue's appeal focused on the non-imposition of an equivalent penalty.

3. The dispute over the inclusion of engraving charges in the final product's value was examined. The tribunal found no merit in the case for inclusion as conceded by the appellant's counsel, upholding the impugned order on this aspect.

4. The appellant's bona fide belief regarding the non-inclusion of engraving charges in the final product's value was assessed. Statements from the Revenue authority supported the appellant's position that the charges were not for manufacturing activity, strengthening their belief in the non-liability for inclusion in the product valuation.

5. In the context of the extended period invocation due to non-declaration of engraving charges, the tribunal found that the demand confirmed by the lower authority could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside solely on the grounds of limitation, resulting in the appeal of the assessee being allowed and the revenue's appeal being rejected.