Mumbai CESTAT allows appeal on central excise duty recovery under section 11A regarding assessable value calculation

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal concerning recovery of central excise duty under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The dispute involved inclusion of difference between amount collected and net present value in assessable value for manufactured goods sold with deferred payment terms. The Tribunal followed precedent from similar automotive parts manufacturer cases, holding that "actually payable" amount at time of clearance was relevant, not "actually paid." The Tribunal ruled that deferral sales tax should be excluded from assessable value, as NPV payment under Maharashtra Government scheme constituted deemed payment without changing quantum of sales tax payable. The impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the retention of sales tax under the Package Scheme of Incentive 1993 should be included in the assessable value for excise duty.
2. The applicability of the net present value (NPV) payment option to discharge deferred sales tax liability and its impact on assessable value.
3. The relevance of previous judgments and legal principles to the current case.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Retained Sales Tax in Assessable Value:

The primary issue was whether the amount of sales tax retained by the appellant under the Package Scheme of Incentive 1993 should be included in the assessable value for excise duty purposes. The appellant was allowed to retain a portion of the sales tax collected, which was to be repaid in installments or through a net present value (NPV) option. The central excise authorities argued that the difference between the collected amount and the NPV should be included in the assessable value of the goods. The Tribunal referred to the case of Super Synotex, where it was debated whether sales tax retained by the manufacturer forms part of the transaction value. However, the Tribunal noted that the specific issue of deferred sales tax liability and its discharge through NPV was not addressed in Super Synotex.

2. Impact of NPV Payment Option on Assessable Value:

The Tribunal examined the amendment in 2002 that allowed manufacturers to discharge deferred sales tax liability by paying its NPV. The Tribunal emphasized that the law provided an option to pay the NPV, which did not alter the sales tax liability or its character. The Tribunal cited the Kinetic Engineering Ltd case, which clarified that deductions for sales tax should be based on the amount actually paid or payable at the time of removal of goods. Changes in liability due to subsequent amendments should not affect the assessable value determined at the time of removal. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not be held liable for changes in law that occurred after the clearance of goods.

3. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Legal Principles:

The Tribunal relied on several judgments to support its decision. In Indo Hacks Ltd. and MRF Ltd., it was held that subsequent changes in price or tax liability do not affect the assessable value determined at the time of clearance. The Tribunal also referred to the C.B.E. & C. circulars, which clarified that deductions for sales tax are permissible based on the amount billed, irrespective of retention or incentives. The Tribunal noted that these circulars are binding on the department, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paper Products Ltd. and Dhiren Chemicals. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's arguments were inconsistent with these principles and rejected them.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand and other detriments imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune, and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the peculiar features of the Maharashtra scheme and the legal principles established in previous judgments supported the appellant's case. The retention of sales tax under the scheme and the subsequent option to pay NPV did not warrant inclusion in the assessable value for excise duty purposes. The order was pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024.

---