Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1202 - AT - Central ExciseUndervaluation - short payment of duty - cost of lignite extraction - contravention of provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 4, 6 & 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - whether the transaction value of the lignite extracted and supplied by the appellant shall be the petitioned price as alleged by the Department or the adhoc price as is prayed by the appellant? Held that:- The Commission as constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 shall determine the tariff of a generating company under a multi-year tariff framework for each financial year in furtherance of the petition alongwith the requested documents as mentioned therein by the generating company. The Rule permits the generating company for filing for provisional determination of transfer price at mine-mouth before taking up mining. Such provisional determination is mentioned to be the guiding factor for determination of final transfer price which has to be determined after a lengthy and time-taking procedure to be followed by the Commission in furtherance of Regulation 13 thereof. The transaction value is the price actually paid or payable for the goods. The price actually paid in the present case is adhoc/ interim price and the price payable would be the price as would be finally fixed by RERC - Ld. Commissioner Adjudication has gone wrong while still considering the petitioned price to be the transaction value for the lignite supplied by the appellant. Otherwise also, since the price could only be fixed by RERC, an appointed authority under Electricity Act, 2003, once petitioned price has not been approved by this authority, the appellant has no right to recover the same from RWPL - the petitioned price cannot be categorised as price actually payable. Hence, is wrongly considered as the transaction value. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- There is no suppression of facts on part of the appellant. The question of intent to evade tax has no relevance in the given facts and circumstances. Ld. Commissioner Adjudication is therefore opined to have been wrong while permitting the Department for invoking the extended period of limitation for issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice - extended period cannot be invoked. The demand of excise duty is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|