9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed documents and hence, no deficiency notice was issued. The valuation as per CAS-4 certificate which has gone on records of the Revenue is required to be accepted - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to go by the valuation as per the CAS-4 certificate alone. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Revenue authorities were aware of the method of valuation adopted by the appellant which was based on the CAS-4 certificate which in fact underwent proper scrutiny by the audit party of the Revenue as early as in 2016-17 and hence, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression, fraud, etc.; therefore, invoking the extended period of limitation in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2018 is not just and proper. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 41369 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41131 / 2019 - Dated:- 26-9-2019 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. P. Kulasekaran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. P. Kulasekaran, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the assessee and Shri. L. Nan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of invoking the extended period of limitation, Ld. AR would submit that the issue of undervaluation came to the notice of the Revenue only during the audit and that therefore, the reliance placed by the Adjudicating Authority on Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified. 4.1 In reply, Ld. Advocate for the appellant would submit that the appellant having furnished all the details to the audit team, including the CAS-4 certificate wherein the audit team was aware of the valuation, there was no scope for suppression, fraud, etc., and therefore, the period of limitation of one year alone is available; that in the case on hand, the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2018 becomes hopelessly barred by limitation. 4.2 He also submitted that the appellant had approached the Revenue through RTI and obtained details furnished by the appellant with the Revenue, wherein the Revenue itself has admitted as to the furnishing of all the required documents and that there was no deficiency. 5. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions/orders relied on during the course of arguments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel to give a meaning which does not fit into the meaning of the expression ordinarily sold‟. In other words, in the transaction under consideration, the goods are sold below the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. Therefore, in our view, such sales may be disregarded as not being done in the ordinary course of sale or trade. In our view, for the purpose of Section 4(1)(a) all that has to be seen is : does the sale price at the factory gate represent the wholesale cash price. If the price charged to the purchaser at the factory gate is fair and reasonable and has been arrived at only on purely commercial basis, then that should represent the wholesale cash price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. This is the price which has been charged by the manufacturer from the wholesale purchaser or sole distributor. What has to be seen is that the sale made at arms length and in the usual course of business, if it is not made at arms length or in the usual course of business, then that will not be real value of the goods. The value to be adopted for the purpose of assessment to duty is not the price at which the manufacturer actually sells the goods at his sale depot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise duty is chargeable where price is the sole consideration of a sale on `Transaction value'. `Transaction value' means the price actually paid or payable for the goods and any additional amount the buyer is liable to pay to the assessee or anyone on his behalf in connection with the sale vide Section 4(3)(d) supra. Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price and Excisable Goods), Rules 20006 provides that in case of a sale, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value and the amount of money value of any considerations following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee. Thus, duty is chargeable on the price actually paid for the goods , in other words, the price paid as consideration for transfer of property in the goods 7.2 From the above, it is quite obvious that the duty can only be on the transaction value. In the case on hand, the transaction value cannot be anything other than the valuation arrived at by a qualified Cost Accountant in his CAS-4 certificate. The other peculiar fact of the case is that the audit party has acknowledged the furnishing of such CAS-4 certificate and the Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
