9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1253 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - inclusion of sales tax retained by the respondent in assessable value - Section 4 (3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - As per Scheme of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999, the assessees subscribing to such Scheme are allowed retention of the sales tax collected by them on the goods sold without depositing the same to the Sales Tax Department - The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II VERSUS M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD. AND OTHERS 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT has made it clear that under such circumstances, the benefit of deduction of the sales tax amount under Section 4(4)(d) will not be available. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Hon ble High Courts have taken the view that since there was no clarity on the issue, untill the issue is settled by the Apex Court the assessee is not said to be at fault. Hence, extended period would not be available to raise the demand - thus, restricted for normal period - penalty also set aside. The Adjudicating authority is directed to re-quantify the demand within the normal time limit, which is required to be paid along with interest. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
- Inclusion of sales tax incentive amount in the assessable value for levy of excisable duty - Applicability of recent court decisions and circulars on the issue - Imposition of penalty on the respondent Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of sales tax incentive amount in the assessable value for levy of excisable duty The respondent, having a unit for manufacturing excisable goods under a state incentive scheme, retained sales tax collected without depositing it to the government. The Revenue contended that this amount should be added to the assessable value for excise duty. The Adjudicating authority initially dropped the demand, but the Revenue challenged this decision. The Revenue cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that unless the sales tax is paid to the government, it cannot be deducted under Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act. The respondent's counsel acknowledged the court decisions favoring the Revenue but highlighted a CBEC circular and decisions of High Courts limiting the demand to the normal period. The Tribunal upheld the demand, following the Supreme Court's interpretation and directed the Adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand within the normal time limit. Issue 2: Applicability of recent court decisions and circulars on the issue The Tribunal considered recent court decisions and the CBEC circular clarifying the inclusion of sales tax incentives in the assessable value. While the High Courts opined that until the issue is settled by the Supreme Court, extended period provisions should not apply, they restricted the demand to the normal time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to limit the demand to the normal time limit, following the High Courts' approach. No penalty was imposed on the respondent due to the lack of clarity on the issue until the recent decisions. Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on the respondent The Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty on the respondent, considering the lack of clarity on the issue until recent court decisions and circulars provided guidance. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the re-quantification of the demand within the normal time limit, emphasizing that no penalty should be levied on the respondent. This comprehensive analysis highlights the Tribunal's decision on the issues of including sales tax incentives in the assessable value, the impact of recent court decisions and circulars, and the imposition of penalties on the respondent.
|
