9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ERSUS M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT ], has held that the sales tax concession retained by the assessees 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, it is held that 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. Extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is observed that the ld. adjudicating authority has failed to show any positive act of suppression on the part of the Appellant. The details of VAT collected and retained by the Appellant are reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the sales tax concession retained by the assessees 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. It is pointed out that following the Board Circular, this Bench also decided similar issues and confirmed the demands of central excise duty only for the normal period of limitation, such as in the case of M/s. Jalshakthi Plastics Industries Vs Commissioner (Appeals), C.G.S.T. C.Ex., NER, Guwahati [Final Order No.76330 of 2023 dated 09.08.2023 in Excise Appeal No. 77395 of 2018 (CESTAT, Kolkata)] and M/s. Meghalaya Hume Pipe Industries v. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation and accordingly prayed for setting aside the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period. They have also prayed for setting aside the penalties imposed. 6. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is regarding includability of the sales tax concession retained by the Appellant in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. We observe that the issue is no more res integra as the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II reported in 2014 (301) ELT 273, has held that the sales tax concession retained by the assessees is required to be added in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. By relying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2014(307) ELT 625(SC)and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273dismissed the departmental appeal.12.2 In the case, CESTAT relying on Apex Court decision in the case of MarutiSuzuki India Ltd. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
