Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (2) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bility of bonafide doubt regarding the quantum of deduction of sales tax in view of different interpretations prevalent during the time. The Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in ( 2013 (9) TMI 310 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ), in a matter involving Central Excise duty consequent on re-calculation of sales tax, held that the issue involved bonafide dispute as requires interpretation of valuation provisions and no extended period can be invoked. Considering the above discussion, we are of the opinion that while the appellants are liable to pay the Central Excise duty as per the valuation determined in the impugned order the demand for extended period cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the penalty on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ugned order confirmed the demands and imposed equal penalty. The present appeal is against this order. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri K.K. Anand submitted that on merits the case has been held against the appellant in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CCE Jaipur - II vs. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) . Hence, they are not contesting on the merits of the valuation and consequent demand. The only point of submission made by the learned Counsel is on the time bar aspect of first demand dated 04/11/2008. This demand covered the period from 01/04/2005 to 31/12/2007. The learned Counsel pleaded that there is no question of fraud, collusion or suppression on their part. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Circulars dated 12/03/1998 and 09/10/2002. In the case of Maruti Udyog Limited vs. CCE, Delhi - III reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 360 (Tri. - Del), the Tribunal held that deduction is permissible of the full sales tax chargeable and the fact that there is an adjustment between the assessee and the State Government on payment of sales tax does not change the legal position. In Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2003 (160) E.L.T. 859 (Tri. - Del.), the Tribunal held that assessee is eligible for deduction of sales tax charged from the buyers and not restricted to the amount paid to the Government. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in Pratap Rajasthan Spl. Steel Limited vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority requiring the assessees to deposit or pay the whole amount and the consequential imposition of penalty also cannot be held to be defensible . 7. Hence, considering the above position, we are of the view that the appellant's plea of bonafide belief and non-existence of elements of fraud, collusion, suppression etc. on their part merits consideration. We find the show cause notice dated 04/11/2008 did not elaborate the reason for invoking the extended period. The impugned order confirms the demand for longer period. We find the conclusion and the analysis made in the original order on this issue as unsustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (14 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates