9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1207 - AT - Central ExciseCalculation of Excise duty - includability of the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT - The Appellant has not suppressed any information from the department. There were decisions of the Tribunals that the sales tax concession retained by the assesses is not required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. Thus, it is observed that the appellant cannot be faulted for not including the same in the assessable value. As there is no evidence of suppression of facts available on record, it is held that the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period is liable to be set aside. In the present case, it is observed that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority has failed to show any positive act of suppression on the part of the Appellant. The details of VAT collected and retained are reflected in the audited Profit Loss account and balance sheet of the impugned periods. Therefore, we hold that extended period of limitation as provided under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked for recovery of the short paid duties. The Circular issued by the Board also supports this view. Following the above Circular issued by the Board, the extended period cannot be invoked in this case to demand duty. Accordingly, penalty also not imposable in this case. The appeal is disposed by way of remand for calculating the duty, payable for the normal period of limitation, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Issues:
The appeal was filed against the impugned order-in-Appeal dated 14.09.2017, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, rejecting the appeal as infructuous. The key issue was whether the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant should be included in the assessable value for the levy of Central Excise duty. Issue 1: Res Judicata and Compliance with Previous Orders The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as infructuous, citing that the adjudicating authority had complied with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a previous order. The Appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the issue had been previously decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Board Circular, making it no longer res integra. They sought allowance of the appeal based on these grounds. Decision 1: The Tribunal observed that the demand confirmed in the Order-in-Original remained upheld, and the Appellant's request to set aside the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period was not considered by the authorities. The Appellant's argument regarding the sales tax concession was found to be valid based on the Supreme Court's decision, leading to the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period being set aside. Issue 2: Includability of Sales Tax Concession The main issue revolved around whether the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant should be added to the assessable value for the levy of Central Excise duty. The Appellant contended that they had not suppressed any information and that the extended period should not be invoked in this case. Decision 2: The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument, noting that there was no evidence of suppression of facts and that previous Tribunal decisions supported the Appellant's position. The demand confirmed by invoking the extended period was held to be liable to be set aside. Significant Legal Reference: The Tribunal referred to Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 issued by the Board, which clarified the acceptance of certain orders by the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Circular highlighted that the extended period would not be invocable in cases where there was no suppression of facts, as in the present appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period and the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. The appeal was disposed of by remand for calculating the duty payable for the normal period of limitation, with any consequential relief as per law.
|
