TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued by central excise authorities on the premise that the difference between the actual collection from 1st April 200 to 31st March 2003 and the amount required to be deposited was, effectively, additional consideration for goods sold, the order [ order-in-original no: PUN-EXCUS-002-COM-008-14-15 dated 23rd February 2015 ] of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - II adjudicated recovery of duty of Rs. 2,18,51,502/- under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest under section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, besides imposing penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Rational Engineers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - I [2023 (11) TMI 363 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. 4. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II v. Super Synotex (India) Ltd [2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2014 (307) ELT 625 (SC)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Shre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Super Synotex judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The obvious conclusion is that none of the parties who were appearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue involved in other appeals is different. It also appears to us that none of such affected appellants/ respondents have argued issue involved in their cases as we do not find any arguments which have been advanced before us or which were discussed in the case of Kinetic Engineering by this Tribunal as recorded or discussed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment. It does not appear that the counsels for the various respondents in the case of Kinetic Engineering were present in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and did explain the differentiating aspect and after hearing them, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed their pleas and passed the said judgment. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not finally allowed the appeal of the Revenue but has set aside all the orders passed by the original authority as also the Tribunal and remanded the matter to this Tribunal to decide the issues keeping in view the principles laid down in the said order. In view of the above factual ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in a fair and reasonable way. That is the reason why in all the provisions relating to determination of value, right from 1944 onwards, it has been provided in the law that the value has to be determined at the time and place of removal of the goods. In the instant case, the appellants claimed deduction towards sales tax as per the liability at the time of removal of the goods. Subsequently if that liability got altered due to changes in law or for any other reason, such alteration cannot have any impact or effect on the assessable value of the goods, which were cleared much earlier. A perusal of the table listed in the opening paragraph of this order clearly shows that the period of dispute involved was from 1992 to 2007-2008. In other words, the goods were cleared during this period. In all these cases, the sales tax liability applicable at the time of removal of the goods was deferred and the said liability was allowed to be discharged at the net present value of the deferred tax in terms of the changes in sales tax law introduced in November, 2002 in public interest. This change in the liability has nothing to do with the abatement towards sales tax permissible under the ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h implies the law as interpreted in these orders are still valid and enforceable. In all these judgments (cited in para 3.5 supra), the consistent view taken is that abatement of sales tax granted under the state laws or grant of sales tax incentives does not, in any way, affect the admissibility of deduction towards sales tax while determining the value for the purposes of Central Excise levy. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation of law made in these judgments. On the ether hand, the citations relied upon by the Revenue also do not support the Revenue's case. In the Adhunik Detergents Ltd., case relied upon by the Revenue there was a sales tax exemption available and no sales tax was payable on the goods and, therefore, it was held that deduction as contemplated in Section 4(4)(d) (ii) would not be permissible. The Mewar Textile Mills case relied upon by the Revenue also deals with a case where sales tax exemption was granted. The Bata (India) case referred to by the Revenue dealt with a situation were the tax was not part of the price and, therefore, exclusion of tax was not permitted. In the case under consideration before us, there is no exemption from sales t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whatsoever so far as the liability to pay excise duty is concerned. That being so, even if we assume that the roll back in the price of tyres manufactured by the appellant-company was occasioned on account of the directive issued by the Central Government, that by itself, without anything more, would not entitle the appellant to claim a refund on the price differential unless it is shown that there was some agreement in this behalf with the Government and the latter had agreed to refund the excise duty to the extent of the reduced price." Again in the case of Shri Bhagwati SSK Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 120 (Tri.) this Tribunal held that fluctuations in price of excisable goods subsequent to clearance of goods would not affect assessable value and liability of excise duty already accrued. In the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1041 (Tri.-Del.), this Tribunal considered a case, where sugar was cleared at prices fixed by the Government for levy quota sugar and the prices were subsequently revised by the Government. In that case it was held that assessable value of sugar would be the price at which the suga....