Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (1) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tegra as the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II VERSUS M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT ], has held that the sales tax concession retained by the assesses is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. By relying on the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. Invocation of extended period of limitation - It is also contended that the value of goods cleared under Section 4A should not be included for computing the duty payable for the normal period o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he goods cleared under Section 4A of the Valuation was not accepted. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 2. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellant submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the matter of Super Synotex (India ) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II, reported in 2014 (301) ELT 273 wherein it has been held that the sales tax concession retained by the assesses is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. However, Board has issued Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 and clarified that extended period shall not be invoked in such cases. Following the Board Circular, this Bench also decided sim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 17.12.2019 wherein he confirmed the demand of Rs.58,05,357/- including Education Cess and SHE Cess along with interest, for the normal period of limitation and dropped the demand raised by invoking the extended period. In their submission, the Appellant submits that they agree for the payment of duty for the normal period of limitation. The Appellant submits that they have clared the cement under Section 4A, which should not be included for the purpose of computation of the duty demand. However, the adjudicating authority has not considered their submission and demanded duty by including the goods cleared under Section 4A method of valuation also. Accordingly, they prayed for re-quantifying the demand for the normal period by excluding the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le in this case and for the same reason penalty is also not imposable. 8. We find merit in the argument of the Appellant. The VAT incentive scheme is applicable only in respect of the goods cleared under Transaction Value as provided under Section 4 of the CEA, 1944. It is not applicable to the goods cleared under Section 4A. Hence, we agree with the contention of the Appellant that value of goods cleared under Section 4A should not be included for computing the duty payable for the normal period of limitation. 9. Regarding the penalty imposed, the Appellant submits that they have not suppressed any information from the department. We observe that there were decisions of the Tribunals that the sales tax concession retained by the asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... )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 CESTAT held that 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 30.06.2000 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 on the issue, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault, hence extended period would not be available to raise the demand . 11. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates