Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 512 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of amount of duty on the additional consideration to the extent of forfeiture of security deposit - breach of contract - earnest money deposit - HELD THAT:- The definition of ‘transaction value’ has been defined as reproduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the order. It clearly states that whatever the amounts paid or payable as the condition of the sale of the goods shall be part of the assessable value. Earnest money deposit and deductions made therefrom cannot be termed as an amount charged for the sale of the impugned goods, more-so-ever when it was against an auction sale. In M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR [2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has held that the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards “consideration” for “tolerating an act” leviable to service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. In M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., SALEM VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [2021 (7) TMI 1092 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the Tribunal has held that The activities, therefore, that are contemplated under section 66E(e), when one party agrees to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act, are activities where the agreement specifically refers to such an activity and there is a flow of consideration for this activity. There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
|