Commissioner of Central Excise,Chandigarh Vs. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd. [2007] Insc
669 (29 May 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Customs Excise and
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Block, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT')
allowing the appeal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee').
By the impugned order, the CEGAT also held that the removal of goods and
payment of duty took place between July 1995 to March 1996. The assessee had
paid differential duty as worked out by them also in November 1996. In these
circumstances, there is no factual basis to the allegation that the assessee
suppressed any material facts. Show-cause notice dated 1.6.2000 was issued
almost four years after the payment of the differential duty by the assessee,
well beyond the normal period allowed for duty demands under Section 11A of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act').
Demand of duty for longer period upto 5 years is permissible only if the
short levy of duty is on account of suppression, mis-declaration of facts,
fraud etc. as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. These elements
constituting contumacious conduct by the assessee are entirely lacking in the
present case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the ground of time bar
without going into the merits of the case. It was held that assessee was
entitled to return of amount paid by them over and above the differential duty
of Rs.67,88,027/- paid on 28.11.1996
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- Assessee claimed certain
deductions from the price towards sales tax as their claim for exemption from
the sales tax was turn down by the sales tax authorities including the Tribunal
in 1995. Duty was accordingly assessed and paid on the value worked out after
deducting the sales tax payable from the price. While the dispute with sales
tax authorities was pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court assessee
re-assessed the clearance by including the sales tax element originally
excluded from the price. Assessee paid the differential duty of Rs.67,88,027/-
on 28.11.1996. On 1.6.2000 Commissioner of Central Excise issued show cause
notice alleging that assessee had evaded duty of Rs.95,03,238/- in regard to
Rs.2,37,58,095/- collected towards sales tax. The demand was confirmed by the
order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh II.
A demand for differential duty of Rs.27,15,211/- was made after adjusting the
payment made. Penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was also imposed. Said order was
challenged before the CEGAT who held that the demand was barred by time as the
period of assessment was between July 1995 to March 1996 and payment of
differential duty was made on 28.11.1996 of Rs.67,88,027/-.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the exemption was claimed under the relevant sales tax laws but there was
collection of sales tax as was admitted by the accountant on 26.10.1999. The assessee
also admitted about the collection on 10.11.1999. The amount collected was Rs.2,37,58,095/-.
It has been fairly accepted by the assessee that there was no intimation given
about the sales tax exemption or the deposit made to the range officer or any
other authority.
4. It has been categorically found by the Commissioner that there was no
evidence of any intimation produced by the assessee. It was only indicated in
the reply to the show-cause notice that the matter was pending. The
Commissioner recorded the following finding:
"3.6 In their reply dated 8.2.2001 to the show cause notice, the Noticee
accepted that the amount collected by them towards sales tax and not deposited
with the sales tax department would form part of the price of soft drink concentrate.
They have further contended that in such an event the duty payable has to be
deducted to arrive at the assessable value in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) i.e.
the total amount of duty payable has to be deducted from cum-duty price to
arrive at the assessable value in order to calculate the total duty payable. In
other words, the Noticee has calculated Excise duty by considering the total
amount of sales tax collected as cum-duty price and after taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) calculated the amount of
duty payable and subsequently deposited the Central Excise duty amounting to
Rs.67,88,027/-. The Noticee has relied upon the Hon'ble Tribunal's judgment in
the case of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1999
(108) ELT 361 (Tribunal).
The quoted judgment is not relevant in this case as the Noticee has not
collected the disputed amount as wholesale price of the goods, but has
collected the same as amount of sales tax payable. In case sales tax had been
paid to the concerned department no Central Excise duty would have been leviable
thereon."
5. It is to be noted that the assessee submitted that the sales tax
authorities denied the exemption and the matter was pending before the High
Court. The deposit was made as there was a dispute. To a query made as to why
the deposit was made even there was nothing payable as claimed, the reply was
that it was paid due to pressure. There was no averment made at any stage
taking such a plea.
6. The extended period of limitation is applicable as (a) no information was
given regarding deposit and (b) no information was given about the alleged
claim of exemption and the calculation.
7. In the aforesaid background, the CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Tribunal has to decide whether the benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii)
is available to be granted. In that regard, we express no opinion. It is stated
that the writ petition No.17685/94 is pending before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court. It is for the Tribunal to take note of the decision if any rendered
in that petition. The appeal is allowed to that extent. There will be no order
as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
