2009 (1) TMI 700 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Dispute over assessable value of goods cleared to a depot for sale.
- Applicability of Board's circular and Tribunal decisions.
- Allegation of misdeclaration and suppression.
- Distinction between sale price for replacement market and original equipment.

Issue 1: Dispute over assessable value of goods cleared to a depot for sale:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in tyre manufacturing, who were alleged to have sold tyres from their depot at prices higher than declared in their price declaration. The dispute centered around whether the assessable value declared at the time of clearance from the factory needed revision if subsequent sales from the depot were at higher prices. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to relevant case law and CBEC circulars, emphasizing that the assessable value should be based on the price at which goods are sold from the depot at the time of clearance from the factory. The appellate authority upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing consistency with Board's circulars and Tribunal judgments.

Issue 2: Applicability of Board's circular and Tribunal decisions:
The appellate authority relied on the Board's circular and Tribunal decisions to determine the correct assessable value of goods cleared to the depot. The circular clarified that the assessable value should be based on the price prevailing at the place of removal on the date of clearance from the factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority found that the circular and Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's position, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Allegation of misdeclaration and suppression:
The revenue contended that the clearance of tyres from the factory was based on prices from a depot meant for the replacement market, while the actual sales were to the original manufacturer as original equipment. However, the appellate authority rejected this argument, noting the lack of evidence to support the revenue's claim and the absence of such distinctions in the Board's circular or Tribunal decisions. Consequently, the allegation of misdeclaration and suppression was not considered relevant to the case.

Issue 4: Distinction between sale price for replacement market and original equipment:
The revenue argued that the sale price for replacement market clearance was different from original equipment clearance, implying that the Board's circular did not apply in this scenario. However, the appellate authority found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the price distinction was not supported by evidence or reflected in the relevant circulars or case law. As a result, the revenue's appeal was rejected, and the cross-objections filed by the respondents were disposed of accordingly.

---