Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Prestress Wire Industries, Silvassa ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Cenral ... on 26 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(138)ELT1193(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The impugned order demands duty of Rs. 20.77 lakhs approx., of which Rs. 3.43 lakhs approx. has been paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 17.34 lakhs approx. Penalties have been imposed of Rs. 20.77 lakhs on the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh on Rajendra Gildia (application E/Stay-324/2001) and P.T. Venugopalan (application E/Stay-325/2001) respectively, its employees. Redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs for confiscation of land, building and plant has also fixed.
2. Duty has been demanded and penalties imposed on the ground that in determining the assessable value of the stranded wire manufactured by it, the applicant did not include the amounts, equivalent to 4% of the base price of the goods which it recovered from the buyers as representing Central Sales Tax, post manufacturing charges and incidental charges. Of this Rs. 4.19 lakhs has been demanded on the ground that applicant recovered amounts as representing Central Sales Tax payable on the goods that it sold to the railways, which it did not pay. The contention in this regard is that the railways declined pay this amount to the applicant. Evidence in the form of a letter dated 11.2000 of the railway certifying that no amount has been paid towards sales tax to the applicant for the period in question is relied upon. This, in our view, affords a prima facie defence to the applicant so far as this portion of the demand is concerned.
3. The other contention raised by the counsel for the applicant is that, assuming that 4% of the base price is to be included in the assessable value, the freight and interest on receivables that it is entitled by law to deduct from the assessable value would exceed this amount. This contention is not prima facie supported by any evidence. There is nothing to show that the sale price was inclusive of freight. The claim that the price included interest, ranging between 2.5% and 5%, for two months is also unsupported, prima facie, by evidence.
4. We are unable to accept the contention that the extended period of limitation, contained in the proviso under subsection 1 of Section 11A of the Act, which has been invoked in the notice, would not be available. The description in the invoices of 4% as incidental charges, PMC/Freight is so vague, that anyone could understandably believe that the amount represents anyone of all of these elements. It is not possible to say at this stage that the terminology was so clear that the departmental officers should in the normal course have put on the qui vive.
5. Having regard to these factors, and taking into account the duty amount already paid we think a deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs by the assessee would be appropriate. On such deposit being made within a month from the receipt of this order, we waive deposit of the remaining amounts of duty, penalties and fine and stay their recovery.
6. Compliance on 27th August, 2001.