2019 (11) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - benefit of cum-duty - membrane switches - reconsideration of the assessable value for ascertainment of duty liability - applicability of concessional rate of duty - N/N. 1/93-CE dated 28th February 1993 - HELD THAT - As the dispute in the present case relates to a different rate of duty it should rightly be applicable on the normal price declared and adopted under rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (as it then was). The abatement of duties and tax to qualify the normal price in the Central Excise Act, 1944, as well as in the rules framed for valuation, was intended to ensure that duties of central excise are not levied on other duties. It is not intended to provide for deeming the inclusion of duties in the sale price. The benefit of cum-duty, if extended to appellant, would be contrary to the provisions of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Reconsideration of assessable value for ascertainment of duty liability.
2. Applicability of concessional rate of duty on 'membrane switches'.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and notifications.
4. Applicability of cum-duty benefit.
5. Compliance with provisions of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Reconsideration of assessable value for duty liability:
The dispute in the case of M/s Control Touch Electronics (Poona) Pvt Ltd revolves around the reassessment of the assessable value to determine the duty liability after the disposal of their appeal against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The Tribunal is tasked with reconsidering the assessable value for duty calculation.

2. Applicability of concessional rate of duty:
The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the concessional rate of duty applied to 'membrane switches' cleared by the appellant. The appellant contended that the branded nature of the switches did not disqualify them from the benefit of a specific notification. Legal arguments were presented, citing relevant judgments and notifications to support the appellant's claim.

3. Interpretation of legal precedents and notifications:
The Tribunal considered various legal precedents and notifications cited by both parties. The appellant relied on decisions such as Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd and Maruti Udyog Ltd, along with a letter from the Central Board of Excise & Customs. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative argued that these precedents were not directly applicable to the current case due to differences in circumstances and legal interpretations.

4. Applicability of cum-duty benefit:
The appellant sought the benefit of cum-duty pricing, referencing legal decisions and notifications to support their claim. However, the Authorized Representative contended that extending cum-duty benefit to the appellant would contravene the provisions of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that granting the cum-duty benefit would not align with the legal framework and dismissed the appeals.

5. Compliance with section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It highlighted that the abatement of duties and taxes under the Act was intended to prevent double taxation and not to include duties in the sale price. The decision was made based on the understanding that granting cum-duty benefit to the appellant would go against the legal framework outlined in the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that extending the cum-duty benefit to the appellant would be contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting legal precedents and notifications in alignment with the specific circumstances of each case while ensuring compliance with relevant statutory provisions.

← Previous Next →