2015 (1) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Abatement of equalized/averaged sales tax - Whether the appellants are eligible for abatement of equalized / averaged sales tax from transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act - Held that - There is no dispute about the eligibility for deduction on account of octroi and additional sales tax. The original authority has accepted this in principle. He has disallowed the deduction only based on the grounds that the Respondent have claimed the same on a weighted average basis as mentioned earlier. The Commissioner (Appeals) have allowed the deduction without specifically giving a finding on each of the above three grounds raised by the original authority. We are of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the deduction towards additional sales tax and octroi can be allowed on equalised basis - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2014 (10) TMI 190 - CESTAT CHENNAI - appellants are entitled to claim the abatement of equalized sales tax from the transaction value - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether equalized or average sales tax can be allowed for abatement under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved the issue of whether equalized or average sales tax could be allowed for abatement under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Shampoo, claimed abatement towards equalized sales tax provisionally based on the average sales tax on product price. Both lower authorities held that equalized or average sales tax could not be allowed for abatement under Section 4. However, the Tribunal referred to various decisions in the appellant's own case, including Final Orders from 2013 and 2005, where deductions on equalized basis were allowed. The Tribunal reiterated that equalized sales tax could be deducted from the transaction value to determine the assessable value, following precedent decisions accepted by the revenue.

In response to the Revenue's argument that the Tribunal did not consider decisions of the High Court, specifically citing the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI, the Tribunal found that the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and P&L account were not conclusive proof of payments. The Tribunal noted that none of the final orders were challenged by the Department before the appellate forum, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief. The Tribunal maintained consistency with the earlier final orders and disposed of the stay applications accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to claim the abatement of equalized sales tax from the transaction value, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities. The judgment emphasized the application of precedent decisions in the appellant's own case and rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the High Court decisions. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, providing the appellants with the relief sought in the matter.