Assessee wins Central Excise Act penalty case on transaction value determination under section 4(3)(d)

CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding recovery of Central Excise Act with penalty involving transaction value determination under section 4(3)(d). The tribunal found that the scheme involved premature payment at present value with discounting for time value of money, without retention of amounts by the assessee. Following precedent from Uttam Galva Steels Ltd, the tribunal held that "actually payable" rather than "actually paid" was relevant for transaction value calculation. The demand was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of Rs. 7,16,470/- under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Recovery of Rs. 7,16,470/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The appeal pertains to the recovery of Rs. 7,16,470/- under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, M/s Rational Engineers Pvt Ltd, challenged the confirmation of the demand upheld by the original authority and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant argued that the issue was settled by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad v. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd [2016 (331) ELT 261 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and Kinetic Engineering Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, Nagpur, Nashik [2012 (283) ELT 229 (Tri.-Mumbai)], which distinguished the implications of remission based on 'net present value (NPV)' from other schemes for foregoing tax collected. The Tribunal noted that the scheme did not involve retention of any amount by the assessee but entailed premature payment restricted to the present value, net discounting term for measuring the time value of money.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The imposition of a penalty of like amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was also contested. The Tribunal referenced the decision in re Kinetic Engineering Ltd, which emphasized that the deduction towards sales tax is permissible based on the amount billed or charged from customers in accordance with the law, irrespective of whether the amount is retained by the assessee or incentives are given by the State Government. The Tribunal concluded that subsequent changes in sales tax law cannot impact the assessable value determined at the time of removal of goods.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal, considering the decisions in re Uttam Galva Steels Ltd and re Kinetic Engineering Ltd, set aside the demand and other detriments, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the scheme's peculiarity and the consistent legal interpretation support the appellant's position. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18/10/2023.

---