SC upholds plea of revenue neutrality in case of captive consumption to set aside invocation of extended period
PrintListen to this Article
SC upholds plea of revenue neutrality in case of captive consumption to set aside invocation of extended period
We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 28 (SC)] on the following issue:
Issue:
Whether extended period can be invoked when entire exercise is revenue neutral i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption is available to assessee itself?
Facts:
Nirlon Ltd. (“the Appellant”) was engaged in the manufacturer of Tyre Cord Yarn (“TCY”) and Tyre Cord Fabric (“TCB”) falling under Chapter 54 and Chapter 59 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively, at its Goregaon factory. The products so manufactured were sold by the Appellant at the factory gate as well as removed for captive consumption to its another factory at Tarapur for utilising in manufacturing of final products. The Appellant paid duty on captive consumption of TCY taking value as that of ex-factory sales and price declaration for the same were filed with the Department.
After examination, it was found that there was a difference between the goods which were cleared at the factory gate to be sold to the third parties and the goods removed for captive consumption by the Appellant for its Tarapur factory. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner appointed a Cost Accountant for verification and in his Report, it is was submitted that the two goods are different from each other and therefore, price declaration which was filed by the Appellant in terms of Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the Excise Act”) read with Rule 6(b)(i) of the erstwhile Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 (“the Excise Rules”) was incorrect.
Accordingly, the Department issued two Show Cause Notices to the Appellant demanding differential duty under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Excise Rules along with penalties by invoking extended period of limitation. On appeal being filed to the Hon’ble CESTAT, the matter was decided against the Appellant.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Held:
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even though the goods were found to be different, payment of duty taking comparative value was done with bona fide belief. When entire exercise was revenue neutral (i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption was available to the Appellant itself), the Appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade duty. Hence, extended period of limitation and consequent demand was set aside.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld demand for the period not barred by limitation by holding that the goods which were removed for captive consumption to be used by Tarapur Factory were to be valued under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Excise Rules and the price declaration given by the Appellant applying Rule 6(b)(i) of the said Rules was erroneous.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavours. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
A2Z TAXCORP LLP
Tax and Law Practitioners
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor,
Pocket – 1, Mayur Vihar Phase-1
Delhi – 110091 (India)
Tel: +91 11 22757595/ 42427056
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 266
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments