January 2014
Central Excise: No demands for extended period based on Fiat judgment on valuation: CBEC
The Supreme Court had held in the case of CCE v Fiat India Limited that the transaction value, which had been below the cost of manufacture of the product for over five years in their case, was not acceptable for the purpose of calculating excise duty. The Court was of the view that the consideration of penetration of the market, which dictated such a price, took the transactions out of the category in which price was the sole consideration for the sale, and thus enabled application of methods of valuation other than transaction value. Consequent to this judgment the field formations of central excise considered the manner of its implementation for other assessees, and references were made to the CBEC in this connection. The CBEC has issued circular no. 979/03/2014 dated 15 January 2014 in which it has answered the issues raised, as follows: Is transaction value is to be rejected in all cases where it is lower than manufacturing cost? Answer: No; the Supreme Court itself, in the Fiat judgment, has cautioned against this. By what procedure is the department to identify cases in which transaction value is to be rejected? Answer: It is the assessees responsibility to assess and pay the duty correctly. Verification may be carried out at the time of audit, by looking at factors like percentage of loss, period for which the loss-making price is maintained, reasons for it, whether it is contrary to business practice, and whether it has led to erosion of the companys capital. Manufacturing costs may be verified using CAS-4 standards. The Commissioner will decide whether a special cost audit is required. Can the extended period of limitation be applied for demands based on the judgment, for the period prior to the date of the judgment? Answer: No, not if the judgment is the sole basis for the demand. However, it can be applied for demands for the period after the judgment. The circular can be perused at: http://cbec.gov.in/excise/cx-circulars/cx-circ14/979-2014cx.htm
Explanation after sub-rule (5B) shall be omitted. (This provided for the manner of recovery of amounts. Actually, it is shifted, with some modification, to the end of sub-rule 5C, as seen below.) Sub-rule (5C) is amended to provide that credit of input services is reversed (in addition to credit on inputs) in cases of remission of duty on the final product Two Explanations are added after sub-rule (5C). The first one provides that the amounts to be reversed/paid under sub-rules (5), (5A), (5B) and (5C) must be paid by the 5th day of the following month. The second Explanation provides that if the amounts are not paid, they will be recovered in the manner provided under Rule 14 for recovery of credit wrongly taken The notification can be seen at http://www.cbec.gov.in/excise/cx-act/notfns-2014/cx-nt2014/cent012014.htm
http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2014/csadd2014/csadd04-2014.htm
Udyog has been successful in integrating iTAX with following the ERPs
Updated and written by Radha Arun [radha.arjuni@gmail.com], Consultant to Udyog Software (India) Ltd.
Udyog Software (India) Ltd. www.udyogsoftware.com Phone: 022-67993535 Email: ca-service@udyogsoftware.com | sales@udyogsoftware.com
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.