TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the demand of duty and the related penalties were barred by limitation because the extended period could not be invoked; (ii) whether deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002 was correctly denied and whether excess duty paid on account of the 15% notional profit loading had to be adjusted against alleged short payment.
Issue (i): whether the demand of duty and the related penalties were barred by limitation because the extended period could not be invoked.
Analysis: The duty demand arose from non-inclusion of certain processing charges in the assessable value, but the record showed that the additional charges were omitted in the course of valuation without any material indicating fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate intent to evade duty. The valuation dispute also had to be seen in the context of the department's own direction to load job charges by 15% towards notional profit, and the excess duty paid on that basis was required to be adjusted against the alleged short payment. In these circumstances, the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were absent.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the demand was time-barred.
Issue (ii): whether deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002 was correctly denied and whether excess duty paid on account of the 15% notional profit loading had to be adjusted against alleged short payment.
Analysis: Once the excess duty paid by including 15% notional profit was adjusted against the processing charges that were allegedly omitted, the demand itself did not survive. On that basis, the appellants were entitled to deemed credit on clearances for home consumption, and the denial of credit under paragraph 6 of the notification was not justified. The same reasoning applied to the export clearances, and the allegation of over-valuation did not stand.
Conclusion: The denial of deemed credit was unsustainable and the credit was correctly availed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where excess duty has been paid because of a valuation element introduced at the department's instance, that excess must be adjusted against the alleged short levy; absent fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement, the extended period cannot be invoked and consequential credit denial cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
