Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1183 - AT - Central ExciseAssessable value - Whether the technical service fee should be added to the price declared in the pricelists and consequently be included in the assessable value for assessment purposes? - demand pertaining to 4 pricelists effective for the period 30-12-1983 to 7-4-1985 - Held that:- We note that the facts in the above case laws cases are at variance with the present case at hand. It was held in the relied upon cases that the completion of the assessment memorandum in the monthly RT-12 Returns is more or less an arithmetical check. Hence, the enquiry under Rule 173I cannot be extended to enquiries concerning valuation or classification. We are afraid that these judgments have been quoted out of context and are misplaced. In the case of appellants, it is not the Superintendent who sought reopening of pricelists. It is clear that the show cause notice issued to the appellants by Assistant Commissioner was a comprehensive one which sought to revise the pricelists and thereafter only the RT-12 assessments would be finalized under Rule 173I. It is a well settled law that provisional assessments are provisional for all purposes. Once, the basis of wholesale price declared in the pricelists have been challenged in the show cause notice, there would be no bar to finalize the RT 12 assessment in accordance with the revised pricelists. We reject the contention of the appellant. We hold that the Commissioner has correctly ordered to finalize all the pricelists including the revision of prices in pricelists approved earlier which results in confirmation of the entire demand for the period 30-12-1983 to 28-2-1986. Deduction on account of surcharge on the additional sales tax on the revised prices - if prices are revised as per (i), is to be allowed for arriving at the assessable value for calculation of duty - Held that:- The appellants are not contending that they have paid the surcharge on the additional sales tax. Although, the appellants have already deposited an amount of ₹ 6,96,30,974/- as Central Excise duty, they have not produced any evidence regarding payment of surcharge on additional sales tax for the period 30-12-1983 to 28-12-1986. Therefore, the benefit of deduction on this count from the assessable value cannot be given.
|