9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department noticed that the appellant was charging a lower price in respect of clearances made to certain buyers in return for invalidation and transfer of Advance License in favour of the appellant. In respect of other buyers who did not effect such transfer of Advance License, higher price was found to have been charged for identical goods. The Departmental Authorities took the view that the difference in price between the clearances made to buyers who surrendered Advance License and others who did not, should be considered as additional consideration flowing for the goods and in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, it was proposed to add the difference in price as an addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asized 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submitted that the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case is that the benefits in the form of surrender of advance licenses are to be considered as additional consideration for the transaction between the assessee and the buyers who transfers such advance licenses as a condition for such purchase. The condition for such sale is infact to be considered as the consideration for the sale as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ii) He further reiterated the fact that the Supreme Court itself has reiterated their own findings in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra) in the subsequent decision in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex, Nagpur-I vs. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. [2015(323) ELT 20 (SC)]. He also referred to the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rux of the dispute which needs to be settled is whether the transfer of advanced licenses are to be considered as a consideration for sale of the goods by the appellant to the buyers. The transferred advanced licenses, can be beneficially used by the appellant for duty free import of the rawmaterials required for the manufacture in the appellant's factory. Naturally it is obvious that certain benefit accrues to the appellant through the transferred advanced licenses. From the record it is seen that the demand for differential duty has been confined to only those cases where advanced licenses have been transferred in favour of the appellant though such prices have been charged from buyers who are EOUs as well as Deemed Exports, no demand for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it was in pursuance of the contract of sale between Respondents and M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant that the Licences were made available to Respondents. The Export and Import Policy had nothing to do with the arrangement/contract under which the Licences flowed from 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the argument. Even if same price is being charged for all the three categories as above, it is evident that the benefit accrues to the appellant only in cases where advanced licenses are transferred in their favour. Consequently, the Revenue is justified only in loading such clearances. 10. The appellant has also submitted arguments on the grounds of time bar. 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 Supreme Court decision in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra) reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal reported in [2001(134) ELT 230(Tri.)]. Hence, it is to be noted that the issue was in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
