2012 (9) TMI 868 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules turnover tax & interest not part of assessable value

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department challenging the inclusion of turnover tax and interest on receivables in the assessable value of ... Valuation - Whether turnover tax and interest on receivables were liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee during the period from July 1998 to September 1999 - Held that:- Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2007 (6) TMI 45 - CESTAT,CHENNAI] - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Valuation issue regarding inclusion of turnover tax and interest on receivables in the assessable value of goods cleared by the assessee.Analysis:1. The appeal filed by the department challenged the appellate Commissioner's order favoring the assessee on a valuation issue. The main question was whether turnover tax and interest on receivables should be part of the assessable value of goods cleared by the assessee from July 1998 to September 1999. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee.2. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterated the grounds of appeal and highlighted provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Act specified that turnover tax should not be included in the sale price. The respondent's consultant presented judgments supporting their case, including the case of Commissioner vs. Sujata Textiles Mills Ltd., where it was held that turnover tax under Section 18 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was excludable from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.3. Referring to Final Order No.785 to 786/2007, passed by the Tribunal in appeals by the same assessee, interest on receivables was allowed to be excluded from the assessable value of goods. The appellant did not contest the acceptance of the Tribunal's final order by the department.4. The Tribunal decided the valuation issue in favor of the respondent based on the relevant case law cited. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by Mr. P.G. Chacko.