9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 794 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Royalty paid to copyright owners - includibility - case of the Department is that the royalty paid by the music company to the various copyright owners should be included while arriving at the assessable value of the RCDs - Held that - the royalty paid by the principal for copyright to the producer and artists is not includible in the cost of manufacture of RCDs in the hands of the appellant, however, apportioned cost of master CD and its contents provided by the principal to the appellant is includible in the assessable value of RCDs manufactured by the appellant - reliance placed in the case of M/s. KRCD. (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai 2015 (4) TMI 856 - SUPREME COURT - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of royalty paid by music companies in the assessable value of Recorded Compact Discs (RCDs). 2. Applicability of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 3. Relevance of previous Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments. 4. Determination of the correct assessable value for Central Excise duty purposes. 5. Justification for penalties imposed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Royalty in Assessable Value: The primary issue was whether the royalty paid by music companies to copyright owners should be included in the assessable value of RCDs manufactured by the appellant. The Department contended that the royalty paid should be included in the assessable value, leading to a demand for differential Central Excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, relying on the Tribunal's decision in KRCD (India) Pvt. Ltd. However, the appellant argued that this decision had been reversed by the Supreme Court, making the impugned order unsustainable. 2. Applicability of Valuation Rules: The Supreme Court's decision in KRCD (India) Pvt. Ltd. clarified the application of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act and Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The Court noted that when the price is not the sole consideration for the sale, Rule 6 applies, which includes the transaction value and any additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee. 3. Relevance of Previous Judgments: The Commissioner (Appeals) had heavily relied on previous Tribunal decisions, particularly KRCD (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Sagarika Accoustronics. However, the Supreme Court's reversal of the KRCD decision was pivotal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the value of the master tape provided by the distributor/copyright holder should be included in the assessable value, but not the royalty paid for the music. 4. Determination of Assessable Value: The Supreme Court elucidated that the value of the master tape and its contents provided by the distributor should be included in the assessable value of the RCDs. However, the royalty paid by the distributor for the music, which is inextricably linked to the copyright, should not be included in the assessable value. This distinction was crucial in determining the correct assessable value for Central Excise duty purposes. 5. Justification for Penalties: The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the penalties imposed on the appellant, stating that the duty was paid only after being pointed out by the departmental officers, which is not considered voluntary payment. The Tribunal's decision in Deepak Spinners and other similar cases supported this view. However, given the Supreme Court's judgment, the penalties may need reconsideration based on the revised assessable value. Conclusion: In light of the Supreme Court's judgment, the royalty paid by the principal for copyright to the producer and artists is not includible in the cost of manufacture of RCDs. However, the apportioned cost of the master CD and its contents provided by the principal to the appellant is includible in the assessable value. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-quantify the duty demand based on these principles. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
