Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 578 - CESTAT HYDERABADValuation - Job-work for loan licenses - Demand - Differential duty on the deferential value between net price of the loan licensee and the declared net price - evasion of duty - declaration of net price in the prescribed attachments without production of invoice detailing the quantum of discount given to wholesalers/retailers - Held that:- there is no indication in the show cause notice to suggest that wholesaler/retailer was required to make payment to the job-worker. We also note that there is no reference to the manner in which the duty liability was compensated by the loan-licensee. The job-work charges are only one element of the total cost/price of cleared goods with the major portion being expended by the loan-licensee. Apparently, the price at which the wholesaler/retailer is to be supplied is determined by the loan-licensee who also assumes the responsibility for complying with the procedure laid down in the Central Excise Rules. It is difficult to conclude that the job-worker is in receipt of any amount, other than job-work charges paid by the loan licensee, from the wholesaler/retailer. Consequently, there is no basis for alleging that such trade discount has been retained by the respondent. There is no scope to attribute any motives or an opportunity to the respondent for retaining a portion of the consideration when there is no allegation that the consideration paid by the wholesaler/retailer passes through the respondent. The original authority has, correctly held that the show cause notice has not been able to establish any infringement of the valuation provision under Central Excise Act, 1944 and that no evidence has been led to show that discount claimed to have been deducted has been retained by respondents. - Decided against the Revenue
|