Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1127 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GRP) Pipes and fittings - composite contract - inclusion of freight in assessable value - adoption of deductive value - clearance to own site - Held that: - in case of Composite contract where the Appellant arrived at the assessable value in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, the freight element is not includible in assessable value and the demands are not sustainable - Further in case of composite contracts where the assessable value of the goods was arrived at in terms of deduction method, the freight element shall be included in the assessable value. However in this case since the goods were cleared to own site of the Appellants, if the assessable value so arrived is more than the value arrived at in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, the excess demand shall not be made. Where the goods were cleared to independent buyers but were subjected to the inspection at the Appellant's factory premises - Held that: - the value of the goods was fixed and the freight amount was also agreed between the Appellant and the buyers. Also the sales were complete in terms of sales Tax provisions. In such case when the sale took place at the factory gate and the freight was separately charged as agreed between both the parties, the freight charges would not form part of the assessable value - Further in case where the goods were sold to independent buyers and the freight charges were separately recovered as agreed, the freight element shall not be included in the assessable value and no duty demand can be made from the Appellant. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - there has been no contumacious conduct on the part of the Appellant or no suppression of facts. The issue involved is of interpretation of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules and Section 4 of the Central Excise act, also the issue involved has been subject matter of many litigations, the demands made by invoking extended periods are not sustainable. Penalty - Held that: - On the same analogy, as mentioned above, the Appellant is also not liable for penalty under Section 11AC - As regard personal penalty of ₹ 5 Lakhs on Mr. S.W. Parnerkar, employee of the Appellant company we find that he is merely an employee of the Appellant company. Obviously, when the mala fide is not proved against the appellant company, there is no reason to penalize the employee of the company. Appeal allowed by way of remand for re-quantification of demands, if any arise.
|