Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 141 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Receipt of additional consideration - Duty amount of ₹ 5.92 Crores paid by the buyer towards import duty has effected the sale value of goods - manufacture of FRP tanks supplied as Capital Goods to the user holding EPCG Authorization - subsequent denial of benefit of EPCG Scheme to the buyer - recovery alongwith interest and penalty - Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - HELD THAT:- The issue involved has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR-I VERSUS M/S. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. [2015 (8) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion with regard to the fact that additional monetary consideration, in addition to the price being paid for the goods, i.e. transfer of advance import licence in favour of the seller by the buyer enabling the seller of the goods to effect duty free import of the raw materials and bringing down the cost of production/procurement, is a consideration, the monetary value of which has to be considered under the provisions of the Rules, i.e. Rule 6 thereof. Though Commissioner has in impugned order, upheld the demand to the extent of price differential between the goods supplied by availing the benefit of EPCG License and those supplied without availing the same, the reason for limiting to the price differential is not explicit when investigations show that respondents have additional consideration much higher than the price differential. After the amendments made in Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2000, the concept of transaction value has been introduced. Every transaction has to be examined separately and uniquely, and the assessable value determined accordingly. In the case were additional consideration has been received against a particular supply then the exact quantum of additional consideration received to be added to the transaction value of that supply. Commissioner has given the benefit of Section 11A(2B) to the Respondents for not imposing any penalties etc. - since the respondents have not paid the amount of duty required to be paid with interest, benefit of Section 11A(2B) could not have been extended to the respondents. Thus issue in respect of penal proceedings in terms of Section 11AC read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 needs to be considered afresh. The matter needs to be considered afresh by the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|