|
2023-TIOL-22-SC-CX
Bilag Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Valuation - Related Person - Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - CESTAT held that transactions between the foreign company (AgrEvo SA, later known as Aventis CropScience SA) and two Indian subsidiaries viz. M/s BIL and Aventis Crop Science (India) Ltd. was a combined operation by which both benefited and, therefore, the price at which BIL sold the goods to Aventis Crop Science (India) Ltd., was to be treated as sales to a "related person" - Appeal filed before Supreme Court.
Held: In the present case, undoubtedly AgrEvo SA/ Aventis CropScience SA holds the entire shareholding in Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd. (the buyer) - It also is a shareholder in BIL - All of the latter's products are sold to Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd. - However, this does not show that BIL has any business interest or interest in the affairs of Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd., nor, conversely, that Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd has any such interest, direct or indirectly in BIL - The revenue's concern in examining whether the parties were related might be justified; however, it could not have concluded that such relationship, as is contemplated by Section 4(4)(c) could have been inferred, without applying the proper test - Additionally, the revenue had the materials before it, in the form of documents which indicated the mark up towards profit margin, and other objective evidence to compare, if indeed, the cost of the goods sold, were depressed, or were comparable to the market price of the same or similar goods - There is no finding that the price of the goods was lower than what was the price of those goods, in the market - It has, therefore, to be concluded that the revenue's decision in rejecting the value at which the goods were sold, by treating the assessee as a related person, was erroneous - Impugned order cannot be sustained; it is set aside - Appeals are allowed: Supreme Court (para 17, 18)
- Appeals allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023-TIOL-235-CESTAT-DEL
Harit Polytech Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST
CX - What has to be examined is whether in a case where assessee collects Rs.2500/- towards sales tax and adjusts the sales tax liability of Rs.1000/- from VAT 37B challan issued by State Government as subsidy under promotion policy and deposits remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- towards sales tax in cash through VAT 37A Challan, then whether this 1000/- can be said to be an additional consideration - The decision of Supreme Court in Super Synotex India 2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX would not be applicable to the facts of present case as that was a case where 25% of amount collected as sales tax from customers was paid by assessee and the remaining 75% of the amount was retained by assessee, which amount was treated to be the price of goods - In promotion policy, subsidy does not reduce the sales tax that is required to be paid by the assessee as entire amount of sales tax collected by assessee from the customer is paid - The subsidy amount, therefore, cannot be included in transaction value for purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of Excise Act - Thus it is clear that, subsidy under promotion policy does not reduce the selling price; amount of subsidy under promotion policy is not an additional consideration; decision of Supreme Court in S uper Synotex India would not be applicable to present case; subsidy amount under promotion policy does not affect selling price of goods; Section 9 of Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 would have no application to facts of present case; and matter shall now placed before regular bench hearing the excise appeals: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: DELHI CESTAT |
|
