Excise valuation of deferred sales tax/VAT retained under State scheme: includible in assessable value, but extended period failed.

Under central excise valuation principles, sales tax/VAT retained by an assessee under the Haryana deferment scheme remained includible in transaction value because only tax actually paid or actually payable to the State is excluded. The retained amounts, though collected from customers as tax, were not remitted to the exchequer and therefore formed part of the assessable value; the demand on merits was sustained for the normal period. On limitation and penalty, invoice disclosure of the tax collections and the nature of the deferment arrangement did not establish conscious suppression or intent to evade, so the extended period was not invocable and the penalty was deleted. Cum-duty benefit was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount of sales tax/VAT retained by the assessee under the Haryana deferment scheme was includible in the transaction value for computation of central excise duty. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalty were invocable on the facts of the case, and whether cum-duty benefit was available.

Issue (i): Whether the amount of sales tax/VAT retained by the assessee under the Haryana deferment scheme was includible in the transaction value for computation of central excise duty.

Analysis: The retained amount was collected from customers as sales tax/VAT, but under the State scheme it was not paid to the State exchequer and was permitted to be retained by the assessee. The issue was treated as covered by the settled legal position on valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, under which only amounts actually paid or actually payable as tax are excludible. Amounts retained by the assessee under a deferment or exemption arrangement do not cease to form part of the assessable value merely because the State law treats them as discharged for its own purposes.

Conclusion: The retained sales tax/VAT was correctly includible in the transaction value and the demand on merits was sustained for the normal period.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalty were invocable on the facts of the case, and whether cum-duty benefit was available.

Analysis: The dispute turned on valuation and the effect of the State deferment scheme, and the sales tax/VAT collections were reflected in the invoices. On these facts, conscious suppression or intent to evade duty was not established, so invocation of the extended period was not justified. In the absence of duty collection on the impugned amount, the assessee was entitled to cum-duty treatment, and the penal consequence could not survive once the extended period failed.

Conclusion: The extended period and penalty were set aside, cum-duty benefit was allowed, and the demand was confined to the normal period with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of limiting the demand to the normal period and deleting the penalty, while the inclusion of the retained sales tax/VAT in the assessable value was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: For central excise valuation, only sales tax/VAT actually paid or actually payable to the State can be excluded from transaction value, and a disputed statutory deferment arrangement does not by itself establish suppression or justify the extended period of limitation.

---