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

2023 (7) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roved the inclusion of the Sales Tax retained in the assessable value. It is observed that after the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, many High Courts and Tribunals have decided that in this issue there was no suppression involved and hence extended period of limitation not applicable. The Appellants particularly cited the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Microtek Forgings [ 2016 (9) TMI 784 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and subsequent clarification issued by Board vide Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16/02/2018, in support of their contention that extended period not invocable in this case. After carefully considering the Board s Circular, the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Excise duty amounting to Rs.37,96,556/- covering the period April 2010 to March 2015 on account of undervaluation of goods by non-inclusion of the VAT amount collected under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and retained by them in violation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand made in the Notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 20.03.2017. 2. Swagath Plastic Pvt Ltd (Appellant 2) engaged in manufacture of plastic moulded furniture was also issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29/05/2015 demanding duty of Rs.23,54,766/-covering the period May 2010 to April 2012, on account of undervaluation of goods by non-inclusion of the VAT amount collected under the Assam Value Added Tax Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lected and paid only 1% to the State Government. Sub clause (d) of clause (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines that transaction value does not include sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or payable on the excisable goods. Thus, the contention of the department is that the definition of transaction value itself makes it clear that whatever amount of excise duty, sales tax or other taxes actually paid or payable to the Government shall be excluded from the transaction value. Therefore, the contention of the department is that the Appellants should have excluded only 1% VAT paid to the State Government from the transaction value, but they have excluded the entire amount of VAT collected from the buyers. Thus, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gh Courts and Tribunals have decided that in this issue there was no suppression involved and hence extended period of limitation not applicable. The Appellants particularly cited the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 12.08.2016 in the case of Microtek Forgings and subsequent clarification issued by Board vide Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16/02/2018, in support of their contention that extended period not invocable in this case. They stated that Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while relying on Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi, 2014(307) ELT 625(SC) and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur, 2014 (301) ELT 273 has held that amount of sales tax concess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent is required to be added in the assessable for levy of Central Excise Duty. However CCSTAT held extended period of limitation would not apply. Deciding the departmental appeal, High Court has held that CESTAT in its order has observed that under Circular dated 30.06.202000 CBEC had clarified that such amount retained by the assessee is not required to be added to the assessable value. This view was negated by Apex Court in the above said orders. Since there was no clarity of the issue, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault, hence extended period would not be available to raise the demand. 10. After carefully considering the Board s Circular, the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Microtek Fo .....

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