No appeal would lie before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on factual findings of the Tribunal
PrintListen to this Article
No appeal would lie before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on factual findings of the Tribunal
We are sharing with you an important judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Koya & Company Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. [(2014) 52 taxmann.com 342 (SC)] on following issue:
Issue:
Whether an appeal can be lay before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on factual findings of the Tribunal?
Facts & background:
Koya & Company Construction Pvt. Ltd. (“the Assessee”) was engaged in the manufacture and selling of PSC pipes. The Assessee cleared the PSC pipes on payment of Excise duty to KCCL, an interconnected undertaking. The duty liability was calculated on Transaction Value in respect of clearance made to an interconnected undertaking.
The Department argued that since there was 'mutuality of interest' as the Assessee had received interest-free advance of Rs. 7.2 crores from his inter connected undertaking, therefore the Assessable Value was to be determined as per Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 (“the Valuation Rules”)
The Assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal arguing that:
- Interest-free advance was a commercial transaction, which was reduced from Rs. 7.2 crores on March 31, 2003 to Rs. 24 lakhs on March 31, 2004; and
- Since, the Assessee and his inter connect undertaking were not under
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that:
- The advance had been decreased on account of supply of goods by the Assessee to buyer; therefore, it was a commercial transaction and there was no 'mutuality of interest';
- In absence of relationship as defined under Sections 4(3)(b)(ii)/(iii)/(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules or proviso thereto was not applicable;
- Rule 10(b) of the Valuation Rules would not be applicable because there is no Holding - Subsidiary relationship between the Assessee and his buyer of the goods.
- Accordingly, Assessable Value would be determined as per Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules i.e. best judgment and value will be determined just like captive consumption under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
Being aggrieved, the Department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The Hon’ble Apex Court after observing that the Tribunal had passed the order on the basis of facts and circumstance of the breitling replica watches case held that since the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority, no appeal would lie before the Supreme Court on such factual findings.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. 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)
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 229
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
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...
No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings
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
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