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 extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts to evade payment of excise duty. (ii) Whether, for determination of assessable value, the sale price had to be treated as cum-duty price and the duty element excluded under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts to evade payment of excise duty.
Analysis: The declaration in the classification lists stated that the brand name was the assessee's own, whereas the record showed that the brand belonged to the foreign collaborator. The assessee was aware that the brand name was not its property and had still claimed the exemption. These facts brought the case within the proviso to Section 11A(1), because the demand arose from suppression of material facts and wilful mis-statement made with intent to evade duty.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether, for determination of assessable value, the sale price had to be treated as cum-duty price and the duty element excluded under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: Where the price realised is a cum-duty price, the element of excise duty embedded in the sale price must be excluded while arriving at the assessable value. The Tribunal's direction to redetermine duty on that basis was consistent with the statutory scheme and the settled approach applied in excise valuation matters.
Conclusion: The sale price was to be treated as cum-duty price and the duty element was deductible, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to limitation failed, but the direction to recompute duty on a cum-duty basis was upheld, and both appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Suppression of the true ownership of a brand name in classification documents, when done to secure an exemption and evade duty, attracts the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1); and where the realised price is cum-duty, the excise element must be excluded while determining assessable value.
TaxTMI 
