2009 (7) TMI 1017 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods for central excise duty based on Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the valuation of goods for central excise duty purposes, specifically concerning the application of Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, comprising Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. C. Satapathy, JJ., heard arguments from both sides represented by Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate for the Appellant, and Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR for the Respondent. The Appellant argued that the impugned demand was based on the department adopting a higher price from a previous date when there was a price decrease due to a reduction in the base price of aluminium. The Appellant contended that valuation should be done according to Rule 7, which requires considering the time nearest to the removal of goods for valuation purposes. The Appellant also cited a relevant decision of the Tribunal in a similar case.

The Respondent, represented by Shri V.V. Hariharan, acknowledged that the nearest ascertainable time for valuation should be considered in the case presented by the Appellant, agreeing that the value on 9-5-05 should be taken into account instead of 27-4-05. The Respondent highlighted the absence of a calculation showing the duty liability if the nearest time was considered for valuation instead of consistently adopting higher values in cases of price reductions.

Upon reviewing the arguments and case records, the Tribunal found that the impugned goods were transferred from the factory gate to the Appellant's own depots, necessitating valuation in accordance with Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The Tribunal observed that Rule 7 mandates adopting the price at which goods are sold from the depot at or about the same time for valuation. When such goods are not sold at or about the same time, the rule requires considering the time nearest to the removal of goods for valuation. In the example provided, the Tribunal concluded that the value prevailing at the depot on 9-5-05 should be considered instead of the value on 27-4-05, as the former date was closer to the date of removal. The Tribunal deemed the demand against the Appellant unsustainable as it was based on higher values rather than the value nearest to the time of removal, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and the stay of the impugned order during the appeal process.