2026-VIL-1307-CESTAT-HYD-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1307-CESTAT-HYD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Inclusion of refundable die-development security deposits in transaction value when the deposit is forfeited – Appellant collects refundable security deposits from customers towards cost of die-development with contractual provision for refund on lifting of agreed minimum quantity within stipulated period. If the customer fails either to place the agreed orders or to lift the agreed minimum quantity, the deposit is forfeited - Whether forfeited deposits constitute additional consideration under Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act or represent liquidated damages for breach of contract - HELD – The refundable die-development deposits are in nature of security deposits and not part of sale price of Aluminium Profiles. The liability to suffer forfeiture does not arise because Aluminium Profiles were sold but because customer failed to honour contractual obligations regarding minimum lifting commitments. Forfeiture arose solely because of breach of contract and represents liquidated damages or contractual compensation and not consideration for sale - A distinction must be maintained between consideration for sale and compensation arising from breach of contract. The additional amount under Section 4(3)(d) of the CEA, 1944 must possess direct and proximate nexus with sale transaction and must represent consideration for sale or something intrinsically connected with sale. Merely because the contractual relationship emanated from sale of goods does not convert every successive payment into sale consideration - Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules merely provides mechanism for determining value and does not enlarge definition of transaction value and cannot independently justify inclusion unless amount first satisfies Section 4 itself – In this case, extended period of limitation is not invokable as dispute is interpretational in nature concerning legal character of forfeited deposits and Department has not produced evidence showing deliberate concealment or fraud. Appellant entertained bonafide view that forfeited deposits represented liquidated damages and not transaction value. The demand of duty, interest and penalty cannot be sustained and set aside – The appeal is allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Filing Near: Closing Resolutions...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?