Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (5) TMI 892 - AT - Central Excise

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the valuation of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol for captive consumption, provisional assessment, adoption of assessable value, differential duty payment, and the right to be heard before the imposition of duty.

Valuation of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol:
The appellants initially filed a price declaration for Denatured Ethyl Alcohol at &8377; 11,174/- per KL, which was later revised to &8377; 16,486/- per KL with retrospective effect. The Assistant Commissioner ordered provisional assessment of RT 12s based on the price of comparable goods. A show-cause notice proposed adoption of a different price per KL for valuation, leading to reassessment of duty and demand for differential duty.

Differential Duty Payment:
The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proposal to adopt the value of comparable goods but ordered the valuation of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol under Rule 6(b)(ii) and finalization of RT 12 assessments. Subsequently, the Superintendent directed the appellants to pay a differential duty of &8377; 1,14,29,086/-, including input duty on the goods for a specific year, which the appellants contested, claiming an erroneous inclusion of input duty in the assessable value.

Right to be Heard:
The appellants contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before the Superintendent directed them to pay the differential duty. The Tribunal found merit in this submission and set aside the order, remitting the case for a fresh decision on merits to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent. The Superintendent was instructed to consider the appellants' submissions and the relevant legal precedent before passing fresh orders.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case before any decision on differential duty payment is made. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 04.05.2010.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates