2002 (8) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of contractual value for levy of duty based on advance license and invoice value.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. against a demand for a differential duty amount and imposition of a penalty by the Department. The dispute arose from the value shown in an advance license issued by the DGFT for the procurement of carbon black. The Department contended that the value in the license should be the basis for duty payment under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The appellants argued that the value in the license was not the transaction value, and they had oral agreements regarding pricing with Indian importers. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

The appellants, represented by Shri G.C. Sarkar, argued that the value in the license was not the transaction value for duty purposes. They maintained that the value in their regular invoices, reflecting the actual transaction value, should be the basis for duty calculation. They emphasized the absence of a relationship between buyers and sellers and asserted that the transactions were at arm's length. The appellants highlighted oral agreements with Indian importers and the pricing details in the letter of credit, advocating for acceptance of the invoice value for duty assessment.

On the other hand, Shri A.K. Pandit, representing the Department, contended that the value in the advance license was crucial for duty calculation as it determined the permissible value for sales. He argued that the contract price should align with the value in the license, emphasizing the necessity of a documented contract for price settlement. The Department maintained that the absence of a formal contract or agreement meant that the value in the license should be considered the contract price for duty assessment.

The Tribunal, comprising Shri G.R. Sharma and Smt. Archana Wadhwa, examined the submissions and found that while there was no written contract, an oral agreement existed, leading to the opening of a letter of credit. The Tribunal determined that the value in the letter of credit represented the contractual price, which should be the assessable value for duty calculation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the duty must be paid based on the value in the letter of credit, even if the actual sales price was slightly lower. The Tribunal clarified that the invoice value could not be accepted as the contract price in the absence of a written agreement. Consequently, the duty calculation was to be based on the unit value indicated in the letter of credit, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.