2024 (11) TMI 1569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Pune Appeal-II Cx., Goa, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 2.1 The background facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarised herein below: 2.2 The appellants are engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of Aluminium Printed Collapsible Tubes falling under Chapter 76 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As a manufacturer of excisable goods, the appellants are duly registered with the Central Excise department and also comply with various provisions contained in the statute, including payment of appropriate duty on removal of the said final products, out of their factory premises. 2.3 In this case, the Government of Goa had framed a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants herein were one of the eligible units and granted the benefits of Goa VAT NPV scheme, 2005. 2.4 The jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate had interpreted that the difference between actual sales tax collected by the appellants from their customers and the payment made towards Sales tax/VAT/CST at NPV i.e., the net gain component was in fact an additional consideration for the goods sold and therefore the same was liable to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of determination of Central Excise Duty, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. On the basis of such understanding,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upport of such contentions, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the issue arising out of the present dispute is within the knowledge of the department and that the appellant had all along agitated the inclusion of sales tax collected and retained by them in the assessable value. It was further held that inclusion of Sales Tax Incentive amount in the assessable value was interpretational issue and there were divergent views expressed by different judicial forums, and therefore, the charges of suppression etc., cannot be levelled against the appellant for invoking the extended period of limitation. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has upheld confirmation of the duty and interest demand made within....