Steel company facility charges for fixed assets and maintenance excluded from excise duty assessable value

CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant regarding facility charges collected from a steel company for fixed assets and maintenance services. The tribunal held that these charges were not includable in assessable value for excise duty purposes, as they were unconnected to the actual supply of demineralized water. The court found the appellant acted in good faith based on established precedent and rejected the extended limitation period invocation, finding no suppression of facts. Consequently, the demand for additional excise duty and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the present appeal are whether 'facility charges' collected by the Appellant from TISCO are includable in the assessable value for computing duty liability and whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked to demand duty and impose penalty.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Inclusion of 'facility charges' in assessable value
The Appellant, M/s. NLC Nalco India Limited, had set up a plant inside the premises of Tata Steel and Iron Company Limited (TISCO) for the supply of De-Mineralised water (DM Water) in accordance with an agreement. The Appellant sought clarification on the excitability and classification of DM Water from authorities but received no reply. They began discharging excise duty on DM Water and disclosed it in their returns. The 'facility charges' recovered from TISCO were argued to be payable towards fixed assets developed/deployed, regardless of DM Water supply, hence not includable in the assessable value. The Appellant's belief was supported by a previous decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that 'facility charges' are includable in the assessable value due to lack of clarity in the Appellant's letter. The Appellant contended there was no suppression of facts as the 'facility charge' realization was known to the department.

Issue 2: Extended period of limitation
A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing a duty demand by including 'facility charges' in the assessable value, invoking the extended period of limitation. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority dropped part of the demand due to limitation but confirmed the rest. The Appellant argued that no deliberate withholding of information occurred and the 'facility charge' realization was disclosed to the department. The Tribunal observed that 'facility charges' were not connected with the sale of gases, citing a relevant precedent. The Appellant's bona fide belief that no duty was required on 'facility charges' was upheld, and the extended period of limitation was deemed inapplicable. The demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order was set aside, and no penalty was imposed on the Appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant, setting aside the impugned order based on the findings related to the inclusion of 'facility charges' in the assessable value and the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---