TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules on excisable goods removal location, assessable value, penalty imposition</h1> <h3>CCE, Chandigarh Versus Pepsi Foods Ltd.</h3> CCE, Chandigarh Versus Pepsi Foods Ltd. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 481 (SC) , [2011] 30 STT 284 (SC), 2010 (14) SCR 836, 2011 (1) SCC 601, 2010 (13) JT 544, 2010 ... Issues Involved:1. Determination of the place of removal for excisable goods.2. Inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value.3. Applicability of Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Central Excise Act.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of the place of removal for excisable goods:The primary issue was whether the place of removal for the goods should be the factory gate of the respondent or the depot of the related person, M/s. Frito-Lay India. The Tribunal held that the place of removal was the factory gate of the respondent, stating, 'The place of removal, therefore, continues to be the assessee's factory.' The Revenue contended that the place of removal should be the depot of the related person from where the goods are sold to wholesalers.2. Inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value:The Tribunal had excluded the freight charges from the factory gate to the depot of the related person in the assessable value. The Revenue argued that these charges should be included, as the place of removal was the depot of the related person. The Supreme Court concluded that Section 4(2) was not applicable, and the freight charges should not be excluded, stating, 'Section 4 (2) is not applicable. This Court, therefore, affirms the order-in-original but with a rider.'3. Applicability of Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Central Excise Act:The Court examined the transaction under Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Act, which applies when goods are sold to a related person. The Court referred to the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd., emphasizing that the price charged to the related person is presumed to be understated to evade taxation. The Court stated, 'The implication of the manufacturer, the assessee and the buyer being related to each other was that the price charged to the related person was presumed to be understated.'4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act:The original order imposed a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 11 AC. The Court highlighted that 'mens rea' or criminal intent is a necessary constituent for imposing such a penalty. The Court found no evidence of fraud, misstatement, or suppression by the respondent and quashed the penalty, stating, 'But when factually no fraud or suppression or mis-statement is alleged by the revenue against the respondent in the show cause notice the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC is wholly impermissible.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the original order but quashed the penalty imposed under Section 11 AC due to the absence of 'mens rea.' The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed to the extent indicated, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 