Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 721 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - removal of goods on transfer of right to use - It appeared that appellant had sold some servers directly to the cinema theatres / halls under normal transaction value and in respect of remaining servers the appellant had raised stock transfer invoices - whether the impugned clearances are to be treated as stock-transfer meriting valuation under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or otherwise, whether they require to be construed as sale as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules? - Held that: - there is definitely transfer of possession of the impugned goods from the appellant to their customers partly by cash (refundable and non-refundable deposits) and partly by other valuable considerations (right to collect advertisement charges from sponsors of advertisements and receipt of pay per showamount for the QUBE products at the theatre premises. The contours of the transaction between the appellant and their customers in respect of the impugned servers therefore satisfy the definition for sale under Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This being so, the valuation of such sale of the sold goods for the purposes of levy of Central Excise duty will have to be within the parameters of Section 4 of the Act read with Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Notwithstanding the clearances being shown as stock-transfer to Head office, this was only a routing on paper only, however in actuality the impugned servers were delivered in the same condition as they were removed, to the theatre owners. Possibly, appellant had followed such a tedious billing route for accounting reasons. Nonetheless, for discharge of Central Excise duty, the removals will in no way be recognizable as stock transfer and will necessarily take on the colour of saleattracting the manner of valuation as laid down in Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules Penalty - Held that: - From all accounts, the issue boils down to mis-interpretation of the valuation provisions by the appellant - penalty not attracted. Appeal allowed in part.
|