9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant 1) is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Plastic chairs, stool, Table tub etc. A Show-cause Notice dated 05/05/2015 was issued to the Appellant 1, demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.37,96,556/- covering the period April 2010 to March 2015 on account of undervaluation of goods by non-inclusion of the VAT amount collected under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and retained by them in violation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand made in the Notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 20.03.2017. 2. Swagath Plastic Pvt Ltd (Appellant 2) engaged in manufacture of plastic moulded furniture was also issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29/05/2015 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led remission under the Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2009 with effect from February, 2009. As per terms of the above remission scheme the Appellants retained 99% of the VAT collected and paid only 1% to the State Government. Sub clause (d) of clause (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines that "transaction value" does not include sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or payable on the excisable goods. Thus, the contention of the department is that the definition of transaction value itself makes it clear that whatever amount of excise duty, sales tax or other taxes actually paid or payable to the Government shall be excluded from the transaction value. Therefore, the contention of the department is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excise duty on the said sum after amended provision had brought on the statute book." 8. However, we observe that after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, many High Courts and Tribunals have decided that in this issue there was no suppression involved and hence extended period of limitation not applicable. The Appellants particularly cited the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 12.08.2016 in the case of Microtek Forgings and subsequent clarification issued by Board vide Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16/02/2018, in support of their contention that extended period not invocable in this case. They stated that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014 (307) ELT 625 (SC) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 had held that amount of sales tax concession retained by the respondent is required to be added in the assessable for levy of Central Excise Duty. However CCSTAT held extended period of limitation would not apply. Deciding the departmental appeal, High Court has held that CESTAT in its order has observed that under Circular dated 30.06.202000 CBEC had clarified that such amount retained by the assessee is not required to be added to the assessable value. This view was negated by Apex Court in the above said orders. Since there was no clarity of the issue, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault, hence extended period would not be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
