TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d import license in favour of the seller by the buyer enable the seller of the good to effect duty free import of the raw materials and brings out the cost of production. Hence, this constitutes additional monetory consideration which has to be added under the provision of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules - the Revenue was justified in adding such monetory value attributable to the transfer of advanced lincenses in favour of the appellant by the buyers. Time Limitation - Held that:- The show cause notice dated 24.10.2007 has raised the demand for the period November, 2002 to June, 2007; clearly the demand involves extended period of limitation - the appellant is entitled to a bonafide belief that such additional consideration is not required to be added - Revenue is not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation by alleging suppression of facts. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/256/2009 - FO/77096/2018 - Dated:- 14-12-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri H.K. Chakraborty, GM(F A) Suprabhat Roy for the Appellant Shri K. Choudhari, Suptd. (AR) for the respondent. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the manufacturer is allowed charge different transaction values for different classes of buyers. He emphasized that clearances made to buyers transferring advance licenses, EOUs and Deemed Export form one class of buyers. The prices charged to this class of buyers cannot be compared with clearances made to be any other class. He pointed out that the department has proceeded to add additional consideration on the basis of the price at which goods were cleared to other independent buyers outside the above class. He submitted that the Central Excise Law on Valuation does not sanction such loading. He admitted that the Adjudicating Authority has supported his order for upholding payment of differential duty by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bhubaneswar-II vs. IFGL Refractories Ltd. [2005(186) ELT 529(SC)]. He added that the issue before the Apex Court was not identical to the present facts of the case. The Apex Court in that case was considering a different dispute whether the benefit accruing by way of transfer of advance license has to be considered as a consideration even thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order needs no interference. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. As per the facts of the present case, the appellant has charged lower price for the buyers who transferred the advanced licenses in favour of the appellant. The adjudicating authority has also with the money value of such additional consideration is to be added to the price charged from such buyers to arrive at the correct transaction value in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. This proposing has been strongly contested and resisted by the appellant. It has been submitted that the buyers who transferred advanced licenses alongwith buyers who are EOUs and Deemed Exports, are considered to be in the same class of buyers by the appellant who are charged the same price arrived at on the basis of Import Parity Price. It is not disputed that the buyers who are EOUs and Deemed Exports do not transfer the advanced licenses in favour of the appellant, but are still charged the same lower price as those buyers who transferred advanced licenses. 7. The crux of the dispute which needs to be settled is whether the transfer of advanced licenses are to be considered as a consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the buyer to the seller. At the costs of repetition it must be mentioned that had the Respondents had Advance Intermediate Licence on their own i.e. without M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant having to surrender its Licences for the purposes of the contract, then the reasoning of the Tribunal may have been correct. But here, in pursuance of the Contract of Sale, there is directly a flow of additional consideration from the buyer to seller. The value thereof has to be added to the price. We are thus unable to accept the broad submission that where parties take advantage of policies of the Government and the benefits flowing therefrom, then such benefit cannot be said to be an additional consideration . Ratio of the above decision is that in addition to the price being paid for the goods, the transfer of advanced import license in favour of the seller by the buyer enable the seller of the good to effect duty free import of the raw7 materials and brings out the cost of production. Hence, this constitutes additional monetory consideration which has to be added under the provision of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. It is further seen that the Supreme Court has reiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
