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 activity of manufacturing furniture at the site of another person amounted to manufacture of excisable goods liable to central excise duty; (ii) whether the assessable value had to be worked out on a cum-duty basis and the duty recomputed accordingly; (iii) whether the penalty on the purchaser/recipient under Rule 209A could be sustained and whether the amount deposited by it could be adjusted towards the manufacturer's liabilities; and (iv) whether interest under Section 11AB was payable for a period prior to its introduction.
Issue (i): Whether the activity of manufacturing furniture at the site of another person amounted to manufacture of excisable goods liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: The activity carried out at the site of another person was held to amount to manufacture of furniture attracting central excise duty. The goods were not treated as non-excisable merely because they were fabricated and fixed at the site. The Commissioner's approach of granting benefit of the notification where applicable and making adjustments in valuation for repairs and items permanently fixed to the walls was accepted in principle.
Conclusion: The activity amounted to manufacture of excisable goods and the goods were liable to central excise duty.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessable value had to be worked out on a cum-duty basis and the duty recomputed accordingly.
Analysis: In the absence of separate prices for individual articles, the valuation method based on raw material cost, labour charges, designer's fee and service charge was accepted as fair and reasonable. However, since the duty element was embedded in the sale price, the assessable value had to be taken on a cum-duty basis for proper computation of duty. The matter therefore required recomputation of duty after treating the sale price as cum-duty price.
Conclusion: The duty had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis and the matter remanded for fresh determination of the correct duty liability.
Issue (iii): Whether the penalty on the purchaser/recipient under Rule 209A could be sustained and whether the amount deposited by it could be adjusted towards the manufacturer's liabilities.
Analysis: Mere assertion of bona fide belief was not accepted where the circumstances showed awareness that the furniture was being manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. At the same time, the deposit made by the purchaser could not legally be appropriated towards the penalty imposed on the manufacturer, and the liabilities had to be worked out after recomputation of duty.
Conclusion: The penalty could not be finally sustained in the form imposed, and the adjustment of the purchaser's deposit towards the manufacturer's penalty was not justified.
Issue (iv): Whether interest under Section 11AB was payable for a period prior to its introduction.
Analysis: The disputed period preceded the introduction of Section 11AB, so interest could not be demanded for that period.
Conclusion: Interest under Section 11AB was not payable.
Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the duty, penalties and related adjustments to be worked out afresh after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is embedded in the sale price, assessable value must be determined on a cum-duty basis and consequential penalties or adjustments cannot be sustained until the correct duty liability is recomputed; interest cannot be levied for a period anterior to the statutory provision creating such liability.
TaxTMI 
