2015 (2) TMI 1088 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Whether or not value of the drawings and designs supplied by the Customers of the appellant are to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant - Held that - First date of hearing had been fixed on 26/2/2014 and had been intimated under the Department s letter dated 6/2/2014 under which the relied upon documents had been supplied. Thereafter under letter no. V (Ch84) 15-373/ADC/Bhi-II/2012/ADJ/3283 dated 28/2/2014 the appellant was informed that the hearing is adjourned to 12/3/3014. However, on the same day, another letter bearing no. V(Ch84)15-373/ADC/BhI-I/2012/ADJ/3314 dated 28/2/2014 was issued to the appellant informing him that the personal hearing has been adjourned to 20/3/2014. The implication of the second letter would be that hearing earlier fixed on 12/3/2014 has been adjourned to 20/3/2014 and hence, the date of hearing fixed on 12/3/2014 cannot be taken as the opportunity for personal hearing and as such the appellant has given only two opportunities for personal hearing on 26/2/2014 and thereafter on 20/3/2014 and as per the mandatory provisions they should have been given at least, one more opportunity for hearing. The appellant had requested for adjournment for hearing for April, 2014 on account of sickness of their Director, but the same was not acceded to. In our view, this decision of the Commissioner is not correct and as such the order has been passed without giving adequate opportunity for personal hearing of the appellant. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value inclusion of drawings and designs supplied by customers in goods manufactured by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of machinery and parts, faced a dispute regarding the inclusion of the value of drawings and designs supplied by customers in the assessable value of goods manufactured. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellant, leading to an appeal and a stay application. The appellant argued that the order was ex-parte, highlighting a lack of adequate opportunities for a personal hearing. They contended that only specific values related to production should be included in the assessable value, citing relevant rules and a Tribunal case as precedent. The appellant expressed willingness for a remand to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after a proper hearing.

The Department defended the Commissioner's order, supporting the findings made. However, upon considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the hearing process. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunities for a personal hearing as mandated by law. The Commissioner's decision was deemed incorrect due to the lack of proper hearing opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording the appellant a fair hearing on the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal and stay application by setting aside the Commissioner's order and ordering a de-nova decision after ensuring the appellant receives a proper hearing.