TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal decision: Duty upheld on additional amount, penalty set aside. Potential refunds allowed.</h1> <h3>UBIQUE METAMED PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR</h3> UBIQUE METAMED PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 106 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues: Valuation of goods for duty calculation based on bonus received and penalty imposition.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of goods for duty calculation based on a bonus received by the appellants. The appellants argued that since the bonus received did not constitute a part of the normal price, no extra duty was payable on it. They cited various case laws to support their contention. However, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the contract between the parties included a Performance Guarantee Clause. This clause linked the price of the material to the performance of the material supplied. It stipulated that in case of superior performance, the appellants would receive a bonus, and in case of inferior performance, they would receive a reduced amount. The Tribunal concluded that there was an in-built price variation clause based on the quality of the material supplied, which required duty to be paid on the higher value inclusive of the bonus for superior material. The assessment for inferior material would be made on a reduced value as per the contract terms.Regarding the demanded duty on the additional amount received by the appellants, the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of the demand. However, they noted that the appellants could seek a refund for cases where they received a reduced amount, subject to the legal provisions governing refunds. As for the penalty imposed, the Tribunal found that considering the interpretation of valuation provisions and the circumstances of the case, the imposition of the penalty was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty while dismissing the appeal, except for the penalty amount. The cross objection was also disposed of in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
