9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE I [ 2023 (11) TMI 363 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] was considered. It is found that the issue did come up in the above referred dispute and it was held therein that 'Among the terms actually paid or actually payable used in transaction value, actually paid is not relevant in the present set of appeals. What is relevant is actually payable . Actually payable at the time of clearance is the deferral sales tax. Thus, in our view, the amount of deferral sales tax will require to be excluded.' It was further held that 'the actual amount paid is equal to NPV (which is less than originally payable), cannot make the amount actually payable at the time and place of removal different, particularly when under Sales Tax Law such a payment is considered as deemed payment of the sales tax payable. Quantum of sales tax payable does not change in the above scheme of pre-payment.' In view of the decisions of the Tribunal, deciding on the dispute arising from the peculiar features of the said scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in re Uttam Galva Steels Ltd and it was held 14. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Synotex. A perusal of the order would indicate that what was being considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court was that when a part of the sales tax collected which was permitted to be retained by the manufacturer will form part of the transaction value for determination of excise duty or not. Thus the issue was that the law permits Rs. 100/- to be collected as sales tax which was collected by the manufacturer but law also provided that Rs. 75/- will be retained by the manufacturer and only Rs. 25/- will be paid to the Government. The question was whether Rs. 75/- will form part of the transaction value or not. The issue in all the appeals here is not this but a different. Here the issue involved is that the manufacturer assessees were required to collect certain amount as sales tax which was collected by them. The said amount of sales tax was to be paid after a specified period say 11 to 15 years and in the meantime, was allowed to be retained by the law with the assessees. In 2002, the law was amended by which it became optional for the manufacturer as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y indicates that much emphasis has been placed in the central excise law with regard to the concept of time and place of removal. The law very clearly provides that the value for the purposes of levy of excise duty has to be determined at the time and place of removal for delivery. So, while determining the value at the time and place of removal, the permissible deductions in arriving at the value are also required to be determined at that point of time. In other words, if sales tax is permitted to be abated while determining the assessable value, the deduction towards sales tax will be in respect of sales tax actually paid or actually payable at the time and place of removal of the goods. The word payable means to be paid or liable to be paid as per ordinary dictionary meaning. Liable to be paid means, liability in accordance with the law. Therefore, what is permissible to be abated in respect of sales tax is the sales tax, actually paid or actually payable in accordance with the law at the time of removal of the goods. If that liability undergoes any change subsequently, such alterations/ modifications should not have any impact on the determination of the assessable value. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was that it provided an option to the eligible assessee to discharge the deferred sales tax liability by paying its Net Present Value (NPV). It is relevant to note that the said provision did not, in any way, reduce the deferred sales tax liability or amount. What the law provided was that it gave an option to the assessee to discharge the deferred/future liability by paying its present value immediately. An assessee who has cleared the goods from 1992-1993 onwards could not have anticipated that ten years later the Government will introduce a law providing for discharge of duty liability on NPV basis. Therefore, in our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with a tax liability on account of changes in law, which took place several years after the clearance of the goods. xxxxx 5.9 The appellants have relied on a number of judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal in support of their contention that sales tax collected and retained by the manufacturer as an incentive does not change the character of amount collected and they remain as sales tax payable, which is eligible for deduction. However, as Civil appeals filed by the department in all these cases have been admitted by the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces after the clearance of the goods from the factory could impact the assessable value already determined. It was held that once the correct assessable value has been declared by the assessee and the goods cleared from the factory, any subsequent reduction in prices cannot be a matter of concern for the Central Excise in determining the correct assessable value or even for determining the valuation for the purpose of claiming exemption. In the case of MRF Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 (S.C.), the Hon ble Apex Court held as follows : Once the assessee has cleared the goods on the classification and price indicated by him at the time of the removal of the goods from the factory gate, the assessee becomes liable to payment of duty on that date and time and subsequent reduction in prices for whatever reason cannot be a matter of concern to the Central Excise Department insofar as the liability to payment of excise duty was concerned. This is the view which was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Indo Hacks Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal) and it seems to us that the Tribunal s view that the duty is chargeable at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the sales tax laws when the goods was cleared from the factory and the same was a permissible reduction under the excise law. Much after the clearance of the goods, the sales tax laws were amended to provide for payment of net present value of the sales tax deferred in complete discharge of the sales tax liability. Such changes in sales tax liability on account of changes in sales tax law cannot be a cause for re-determination of the assessable value determined in accordance with the law of central excise as it stood at the time of removal of the goods. Applying the ratio of these judgments to the facts of the present case, we hold that the abatement towards sales tax has to be allowed in terms of the sales tax liability (as per law) at the time of clearance of the goods. Such abatement cannot be subsequently altered or restricted to the net present value of sales tax subsequently paid in complete discharge of such sales tax liability. In other words, there is no cause for re-determination of assessable value on account of changes which arose in the sales tax law much after the clearance of the goods. 5.11 The C.B.E. C. has issued a number of circulars clarifying the abatement to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
