9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were not paying any sales tax to the State Government, the amount collected from customers as sales tax has to be treated as part of the transaction value and hence, its deduction would not be admissible. In any case, since the sales tax was not payable in view of the exemption, its deduction would not be admissible in view of the provisions of Section 4(3)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Though the Commissioner on this point has given a clear finding that this issue had not been decided by the Asstt. Commissioner while finalizing the provisional assessment but still, he has not confirmed the demand of the differential duty on account of wrong deduction of sales tax for determining the assessable value. - The duty demand for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 1995 and also for imposition of penalty on them under Rule 173Q(1). This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida vide order-in-original dated 2-7-1996 by which the above mentioned duty demand was confirmed against the respondent and besides this, penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- was imposed on them under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. 1.2 On appeal being filed to the Tribunal against this order, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 3517/96-A, dated 31-10-1996 while upholding the duty demand for the period from November, 1990 to 16-7-1991 and from 9-3-1994 to September, 1995, set aside the duty demand for the remaining period 17-7-1991 to 8-3-1994 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed penalty of ₹ 4 Lakh on the respondent. This order of the Commissioner was reviewed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners vide Review Order No. 1/MRT/05, dated 31-8-2005 directing the Commissioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal against this order for correct determination of the points arising out of this order, as mentioned in the review order. One of the points on which, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order has been held to be not legal and proper is that the Commissioner has not specifically ordered confirmation of the duty demand as per the directions of the Tribunal, when he has given a clear finding that in the provisional assessment finalized by the Asstt. Commissioner, the issue of deduction of the sales tax had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny sales tax to the State Government. However, it is seen that they were still collecting an amount towards sales tax from their customers and at the same time, they were also claiming sales tax deduction for determining the assessable value. When they were collecting an amount towards sales tax from their customers, while they were not under any obligation to pay the same to the State Government and as such, they were not paying any sales tax to the State Government, the amount collected from customers as sales tax has to be treated as part of the transaction value and hence, its deduction would not be admissible. In any case, since the sales tax was not payable in view of the exemption, its deduction would not be admissible in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
