Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 141 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - disallowance of deduction from assessable value - deduction on interest on receivables and collection charges on the delay in payment for each invoice - period from 01.08.1990 to 31.12.1997 - section 4(1)(a) of the Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal noticed that the only issue before it was whether deduction on “interest on receivables” and collection charges should be based on the delay in payment for each invoice without any fixed percentage (i.e. 9.5%) or it should be @9.5%. This was for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner had recorded categorical findings that “interest on receivables” and ‘bank charges’ were inbuilt in the value of the goods and, therefore, deduction was to be allowed. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee and held that deduction on “interest on receivables” and “bank charges” has to be given based on the delay in payment for each invoice without any fixed percentage. The Assistant Commissioner was required to take a decision after remand from Supreme Court and even though the Assistant Commissioner had earlier required the Superintendent to submit a Verification Report, but he completely failed to take this Verification Report into consideration while passing the order date 31.12.2014 - The Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant was not entitled to claim deduction on account of bank charges and in regard to “interest on receivables”, the Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant had not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate its version that interest an account of delay in payment was included/inbuilt in the price charged for the goods at the time of clearance. The Tribunal noticed that the only issue before it was whether deduction on “interest on receivables” and collection charges should be based on the delay in payment for each invoice without any fixed percentage (i.e. 9.5%) or it should be @9.5%. This was for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner had recorded categorical findings that “interest on receivables” and ‘bank charges’ were inbuilt in the value of the goods and, therefore, deduction was to be allowed. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee and held that deduction on “interest on receivables” and “bank charges” has to be given based on the delay in payment for each invoice without any fixed percentage. The Tribunal clearly observed that there was no dispute about the admissibility of deduction of “interest on receivables” from the assessable value in the case of the appellant and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, deduction of actual interest receivable in respect of each invoice has to be allowed. This order of the Tribunal, which squarely covers the controversy involved in this appeal, has attained finality as learned counsel for the appellant stated that no appeal was filed by the Department to assail this order of the Tribunal and this fact has not been refuted by the learned Authorized Representative of the Department. A Division Bench of the Tribunal in ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE & ST, LTU DELHI [2019 (11) TMI 1573 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] also had an occasion to examine this contention. It was held that when for a subsequent period in the own case of the appellant it was held that service tax cannot be levied, which order had attained finality, the Department cannot be permitted to take a stand in the pending appeal that service tax is leviable. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained for this reason also - Appeal allowed.
|