TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt recovered some amount as Dharmada(Charity) in the invoices from the customers while selling them goods, which according to it was not to be compulsorily paid by customers and the amount so collected was exclusively for charitable purposes. The Superintendents issued show cause notices to the appellant on the ground that the Dharmada collected by the appellant could not be claimed as a deduction from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and raised the demand of duty, penalty, interest etc. for the periods April,1997 to April,1998 and April,1997 to March, 1998. This resulted in passing of the order dated 08.01.1999 by the Adjudicating Authority holding that Dharmada ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be held as a part of assessable value. The Revenue was not satisfied with this order. The Reviewing Authority under Section 35E(2) of the Act by an order dated 21.02.2003, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise to file an appeal against the order dated 26.02.2002. Appeal was filed and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Department and held that Dharmada collected by the appellant would form a part of transaction value for the sale of goods. Aggrieved, the appellant went in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), which vide its impugned order and judgment dated 06.01.2005, partly allowed the appeal, holding that the duty amount ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey for Steel Development Fund, to implement schemes entrusted to Committee by the Central Government etc. This addition to the ex-works price was in the nature of surcharge levied by the Steel Plants to generate funds for the said Committees. Therefore, the said surcharge effectively was imposed by the Committee and went to the Committee for use in its various schemes or for the expenditure incurred towards discharge of Committee's functions etc. Two questions were raised before this Court in that case. First, whether the surcharge in that case could be regarded as a tax so that it could be deducted as other taxes from the normal price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) and, secondly, whether the surcharge being a compulsory impost, could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the surcharge imposed by steel plants was ultimately used for implementing schemes formed to benefit the steel plants themselves. Therefore, there was an element of direct/indirect benefit of the said surcharge accruing to the steel plants/assessees. ii) Whereas, Dharmada receipts are customary receipts and are charged separately and not as part of price, the receipts of surcharge are receipts charged as part of price under a Notification issued under the Iron and Steel(Control) Order, 1956 (under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955). iii) Whereas payment of Dharmada was optional, the payment of such surcharge was made a part of the invoice and was mandatory. iv) Whereas by collecting Dharmada, the Assesses were merely acting as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
