9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpted and is an option extended and exercised, cannot be held as compulsory exaction of money for the purpose of public. Payment of an amount at the rate of 8% or 10% u/r 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004 is not a duty, not a tax and hence cannot be deducted from the price of the exempted goods cleared for by consuming cenvated inputs - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 3111/2007 - INTERIM ORDER NO. 38/2017 - Dated:- 10-4-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President, Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate for appellant Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR, Shri Govind Dixit, DR for respondent ORDER This Larger Bench was constituted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. 2001(08)LCX0003, for the proposition that administrative charges collected by the State Government is to be considered as included in the assessable value and permitted to be deducted as it is nothing but exaction of the amount/tax. It is his submission that the administrative charges are considered as in the nature of the tax and collected under the provisions of the specific act, 10% of the price of the exempted goods sought should be considered as tax or other taxes. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayalashmi Rice Mill v. Commercial Tax Officers, Palakol 2006 (201) ELT 329 (S.C.) for the proposition that nomenclature of law is not important, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81 (Tri. Mum) and Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (218) ELT 703 (Tri. Chennai) has categorically held that 10% reversal of the amount of the price of the exempted goods is not a tax or levy and these two judgements are not challenged further. It is his further submission that appellant is not bound to pay 6% or 10% of the value of exempted goods given to assessee which has been exercised hence it is an exercising an amount. 4. After considering the detailed submissions made by both sides and a perusal of records we find that the issue involved in this case is reference to the Larger Bench is regarding the interpretation of provisions of Rule 6 (3)(b) which needs to be reproduced. (b) if the exempted goods are other than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 The question now arises whether reversal of 10% of the price of the exempted product can be considered as any other taxes‟. In our considered view the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 do not define the word any other taxes‟. Accordingly, we have to interpret the same only if the taxes are liable and collected by the authorities. The proposition of the Learned Counsel to equate the reversal of 10% of the price of the exempted goods, to other taxes is felicitous inasmuch as the reversal of 10% is not tax at all and is for the consumption for the cenvated input for the manufacturing of the exempted products; an assessee is having an option to pay 10%, and later on say that this 10% is included in the price of the exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
