Tribunal remands assessable value, sets aside penalties, instructs re-determination, upholds interest.

M/s Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune -II

M/s Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune -II - TMI Issues involved:
1. Relationship between M/s. VWIPL and M/s. VWGSIPL.
2. Determination of the value of VW Brand Cars.
3. Demand of Central Excise duty and interest.
4. Imposition of penalties.
5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation.
6. Benefit of cum-duty price.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Relationship between M/s. VWIPL and M/s. VWGSIPL:
The Commissioner held that M/s. VWIPL and M/s. VWGSIPL are "related persons" as defined under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They are interconnected undertakings and have mutual interest in each other's business. The Planning Rounds and various agreements between the companies, controlled by M/s. VWAG, Germany, indicate that the price and production decisions were not independently made by M/s. VWIPL and M/s. VWGSIPL but were dictated by M/s. VWAG. This relationship influenced the sale price, making it non-arm's length.

2. Determination of the value of VW Brand Cars:
The value of VW Brand Cars (Polo and Vento Variants) should be determined under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 10(a), Rule 9, and Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules. The Commissioner found that the transaction value declared by M/s. VWIPL was not the sole consideration for the sale, as expenses for advertising, marketing, and sales promotion incurred by M/s. VWGSIPL were not included in the assessable value. The value should be based on the sale price of M/s. VWGSIPL to independent dealers, treating it as cum-duty price.

3. Demand of Central Excise duty and interest:
The revised demand of Central Excise duty was confirmed at Rs. 323,65,87,666/- for the period from January 2010 to December 2014. Interest on the duty amounts confirmed is recoverable from M/s. VWIPL under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner noted that the price at which the cars were sold to M/s. VWGSIPL was artificially lowered to evade duty, and the correct value should include all additional considerations.

4. Imposition of penalties:
Penalties were imposed on M/s. VWIPL under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and on M/s. VWGSIPL under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner found that the transactions were arranged to evade duty by lowering the assessable value. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding that the issue involved complex interpretations of legal provisions and that there was no deliberate intent to evade duty.

5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation:
The Commissioner invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that the issue of valuation was under continuous correspondence and audit, and the department was aware of the facts. Therefore, the extended period was not justified, and the demand was restricted to the normal period of limitation under Section 11A(1).

6. Benefit of cum-duty price:
The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the sale price of M/s. VWGSIPL to dealers should be treated as cum-duty price. The Commissioner was directed to re-determine the assessable value after allowing the benefit of cum-duty price and to re-compute the duty demand accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for re-determination of the assessable value and duty demand within the normal period of limitation. Penalties imposed on M/s. VWGSIPL were set aside, and the Commissioner was instructed to re-determine the duty demand within six months, considering the benefit of cum-duty price. Interest on the duty amount was upheld.