Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1158 - AT - Central ExciseTransaction value for the purpose of charging excise duty - demanding the differential duty - cost of transportation, handling, etc. and one lump sum amount inclusion in excised duty - Held that:- While arriving at the transaction value for the purpose of charging, excise duty, the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are sold have to be included and no abatement in respect of such charges is permitted. In the present case, the goods have been sold and delivered at the ONGC Nhava Depot and on the total value charged, Sales Tax has been collected. In other words, the sales took at the ONGC Nhava Depot. We have perused invoices in respect of supplies made by the appellant at the ONGC Depot and these facts also become very clear from the invoices. Further, in these invoices the total amount charged is indicated and there is no bifurcation as to what is the amount charged for towards the price of the goods, the excise duty element, the cost of transportation, handling, etc. and one lump sum amount is charged which is inclusive of excise duty. The appellant’s claim to the contrary is not evident from the invoices raised as there is no mention in these invoices of any charges towards transportation, handling etc. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that these are towards transportation and handling charges cannot be accepted. Since the sale takes place at ONGC Nhava Depot, that is the place relevant for determination of the transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that depot was not included as a place of removal, prior to 14-05-2003, the appellant has no case at all. After 14-5-2003, the price at the ONGC depot is clearly the value on which duty liability has to be discharged. As regards the invocation of extended period of time, merely because the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking, it does not mean that the appellant is liable to pay duty only for the normal period of limitation. If the appellant does not comply with the provisions of law and the documentary evidences available on record does not support the appellant’s contention, the presumption that the appellant suppressed the facts would naturally arise. The law does not make any distinction between a PSU or non-PSU. In this view of the matter, invocation of extended period of time in the present case is fully justified. Consequently, the assessee is also liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower adjudicating and appellate authorities. - Decided against assessee
|