Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1031 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - additional consideration flowing for the goods arising out of the difference in price between the clearances made to buyers who surrendered Advance License and others who did not - Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - whether the transfer of advanced licenses are to be considered as a consideration for sale of the goods by the appellant to the buyers? Held that:- The transferred advanced licenses, can be beneficially used by the appellant for duty free import of the rawmaterials required for the manufacture in the appellant’s factory. Naturally it is obvious that certain benefit accrues to the appellant through the transferred advanced licenses. From the record it is seen that the demand for differential duty has been confined to only those cases where advanced licenses have been transferred in favour of the appellant though such prices have been charged from buyers who are EOUs as well as Deemed Exports, no demand for differential duty has been raised. In addition to the price being paid for the goods, the transfer of advanced import license in favour of the seller by the buyer enable the seller of the good to effect duty free import of the raw materials and brings out the cost of production. Hence, this constitutes additional monetory consideration which has to be added under the provision of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules - the Revenue was justified in adding such monetory value attributable to the transfer of advanced lincenses in favour of the appellant by the buyers. Time Limitation - Held that:- The show cause notice dated 24.10.2007 has raised the demand for the period November, 2002 to June, 2007; clearly the demand involves extended period of limitation - the appellant is entitled to a bonafide belief that such additional consideration is not required to be added - Revenue is not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation by alleging suppression of facts. Appeal allowed in part.
|