Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Insucon Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur - I

2016 (6) TMI 442 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Correct quantum of exclusion towards sales tax from the transaction value for Central Excise purpose - allegation of suppression of facts - penalty imposed - Held that:- The principle laid down in CCE, Jaipur - II vs. Super Synotex (India) Ltd [2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT ] is equally applicable to the facts of the present case. The legal position that emerges is that if the assessee charged and collected amount towards sales tax but not paid the said full amount to the State, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dering the above factual background, the invocation of extended period in the present case is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the demand of differential duty is to be restricted to the normal period which shall be payable with applicable interest by the appellants. On the same reasoning, we find imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount is also not sustainable. Since, the excise duty applicable on retained sales tax amount has not been collected by the assessee from the buyers, they a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

over, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. S.K. MOHANTY :- The appeal is against order dated 31/5/2007 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cables and Conductors liable to Central Excise duty. In terms of scheme implemented by Government of Rajasthan the appellants were availing exemption from sales tax to the extent of tax paid on raw material used in manufacture of final product. Revenue entertained a view that the appellants have not arrived .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

resulted in under valuation of excisable goods. The proceedings initiated resulted in the confirmation of demand of ₹ 4,04,037/-. The Original Authority apart from confirming the differential duty, imposed penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order and rejected the appeal. Against the said order, the appellant filed this appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the exemption granted by the Sales Tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount of turnover tax on the ground that the appellant had paid only lesser amount to the State Government. The learned Counsel also submitted to distinguish the appellants case from the facts of CCE, Jaipur - II vs. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.). He submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court was dealing a matter of incentive scheme where the assessee was permitted to retain 75% of sales tax collected. In the appellants case they have already suffered sales .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cannot be accused of suppression or willful mis-statement in calculating the assessable value for excise purpose. He also made submission regarding the eligibility of cum duty value in case of allowing abatement only to the extent of actual payment of sales tax. 4. The learned AR on the other hand strongly contested the submissions made by the appellants. He relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Jaipur - II vs. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. (supra). He submitted that the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ort point for decision in this appeal is the correctness of the claim made by the appellant regarding the correct quantum of exclusion towards sales tax from the transaction value for Central Excise purpose. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Jaipur - II vs. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. (supra) examined the scope of the abatement available under Section 4 (3) (d) and held that any amount collected towards sales tax if not paid to the State and retained by the Assessee shall form part o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ally admissible. The Central excise valuation is being done for the final product and the sales tax actually payable or paid on such final product only can be given exclusion. The appellants argument as above is against the concept of transaction value in terms of Section 4. The principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case is equally applicable to the facts of the present case. The legal position that emerges is that if the assessee charged and collected amount t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version