9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 594 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of the goods under Sec. 4A - assessable value calculated as per Notification No. 2/05 dated 7.1.2005 - assessee contested against invoking extended period of limitation - Held that - As per Notification 2/05 abatement of 35% is to be taken on the retail sale price of the goods and there is no provision under this Notification that the abatement is to be taken from the retail sale price excluding duty. As find in the Table given in the Enclosures to assessee s letter dated 10.1.2005 addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise in which they have specifically mentioned that the manner of determination of assessable value they have shown the MRP of the product but there is no column showing the assessable value after deducting abatement from the MRP. In the absence of which there is no assessable value shown of the products manufactured by them in the table though on the top of the table it is shown assessable value calculated on the retail sale price as per Notification No. 2/05. Therefore, non-mentioning of correct assessable value as per Notification No.2/05 is clearly a willful mis-statement by the appellants and the extended period under Sec. 11A is clearly invokable in this case - interest and penalty rightly been imposed on the appellants - against assessee.
Issues: Valuation of goods under Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Challenge on the ground of time limitation.
Valuation of Goods under Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The appeal involved a case where M/s. Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. contested an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the assessment of duty on P & P Medicines. The dispute arose from the calculation of assessable value under Notification No.2/05 CE (NT) and Notification No.4/2005-CE(NT) based on maximum retail price less abatement of 35% / 40%. The appellants had paid duty based on a lower value arrived at under Sec.4A of the Central Excise Act, deducting central excise duty element from the maximum retail price and claiming deduction under Notification 2/05-CE(NT) without paying duty on the value arrived at by deducting abatement from maximum retail price. The Commissioner confirmed the duty, ordered recovery of interest under Sec. 11AB, and imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty. The appellants challenged the order on the ground of time limitation, arguing that they had disclosed the calculation method in a letter dated 10.1.2005, thus invoking the extended provisions of Sec. 11A of the Act. Challenge on the Ground of Time Limitation: The appellants contended that the show-cause notice issued on 31.3.08 was time-barred as they had disclosed the calculation of assessable value in the letter dated 10.1.2005. The letter, addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner, detailed the calculation of assessable value for various products manufactured by them. However, it was noted that the letter did not include a column showing the assessable value after abatement from the maximum retail price, as required by Notification No.2/05 dated 7.1.2005. The absence of this crucial information was considered a willful misstatement by the appellants, justifying the invocation of the extended period under Sec. 11A. The Tribunal found that the appellants, working under self-assessment, had failed to correctly declare the assessable value and pay the duty accurately. Despite starting duty payments in February 2007 following an audit in December 2006, the appellants' conduct did not absolve them of the time limitation issue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, confirming the duty, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants' failure to correctly declare the assessable value and pay the duty accurately justified the invocation of the extended period under Sec. 11A. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with valuation requirements under the Central Excise Act and upheld the duty, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
|
