Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Electronics And Controls Power Systems ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 15 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(120)ECC149, 2007ECR149(TRI.-BANGALORE)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-appeal No 210/04 dated 21.12.04 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore. The revenue proceeded to recover differential duty by invoking larger period with regard to two periods July 2000 to September 2001 and April 99 to September 01. The appellants were manufacturing UPS systems. They had declared prices and the prices had been approved. The department had carried out the audit also. However, after a lapse of three years, they have issued show cause notice dated 9.2.04 on the allegation that there is under-valuation and they have not added the sales commission in the assessable value. The sales commissions were received by them to procure orders for the final product. The appellants have challenged the confirmation of demands on the allegation of under-valuation both on merits as well as on time bar. Their pleas were not accepted. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard both sides in the matter and have perused the entire details on the record. It is not in dispute that all the details pertaining to the clearance had been declared to the department including the receipt of sales commission. The audit also examined the records and the department did not take action for two years. The question in this appeal is as to whether larger period can be invoked in terms of the Apex court judgments rendered in case of CCE Chandigarh v. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (76) RLT 867 (SC) larger period is not invokable where the assessee had disclosed the manufacturing process. It has been held by the Apex court that if the revenue had any doubt regarding the correctness or otherwise of the details furnished then they could have raised query at a relevant period and on that ground, demands for larger period has been set aside. The Apex Court likewise has set aside demands in the case of Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Delhi 2005 (71) RLT 309 (SC) on the ground that when classification list has been approved after verification and RT 12 invoice filed then there is no mis-declaration or suppression of facts.
3. Learned Counsel also produced large number of Tribunal rulings which may not be necessary to quote as we have cited Apex Court judgments. Learned Counsel submits that the issue on merits is also covered in terms of the judgments of this bench rendered in the case of Tecumseh Products India Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad wherein it has been held that market and sales expenses are not includible in the assessable value of captively consumed goods. In this regard, the Tribunal has noted earlier judgments of Tribunal and Board Circular also. We have perused this ground and find much substance in the assessee's plea. The rulings cited will apply to the facts of this case. The appellants succeed both on merits and on time bar. There is no merit in this impugned order. The same is set aside by allowing the appeal.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)