2017 (8) TMI 688 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Guarantee charges - includibility - Period of limitation - Held that - the appellants are liable to pay tax on the entire value of the goods recovered by them as per the contract. It is not open to apportion a part of the value to the guarantee and exclude that from the assessable value - it is apparent that the same are not extra charges but are included in the value initiated with MSEB. This clearly amounts to misdeclaration - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of guarantee charges in the assessable value for excise duty payment.
2. Applicability of extended period of limitation for raising demand.
3. Imposition of penalties and interest.

Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Guarantee Charges:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of guarantee charges in the assessable value for excise duty payment. The appellant, a manufacturer, had provided guarantees to a customer under a contract, and the invoices raised did not include the charges for these guarantees in the assessable value. The Tribunal examined the contract and found that the price mentioned in the contract was inclusive of the goods' value, with no separate price attached to the guarantee. The appellant attempted to allocate a portion of the goods' value to the free guarantee, which the Tribunal deemed unauthorized. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants must pay tax on the entire value of the goods without excluding the guarantee value, as it amounted to misdeclaration. The appeal was dismissed based on this finding.

2. Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the demand for excise duty was raised using an extended period of limitation based on a statement that was not provided to them. The Tribunal considered this argument but ultimately focused on the issue of including guarantee charges in the assessable value. The Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's contention regarding the extended period of limitation, as the primary issue was the correct assessment of the assessable value.

3. Penalties and Interest:
The lower authorities had confirmed the demand for excise duty and imposed penalties along with interest. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal implied upholding the lower authorities' decision on penalties and interest. The penalties and interest were likely imposed due to the misdeclaration of the assessable value by excluding the guarantee charges, as determined by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled against the appellant, emphasizing the need to include guarantee charges in the assessable value for excise duty payment and dismissing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly assessing the value of goods for tax purposes and upheld the lower authorities' decision on penalties and interest.