2011 (3) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Ld. DR states that the appellants were required to pay duty in respect of impugned goods transferred to their own depot for subsequent sale in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - This is a case where there are factory gate sales to independent buyers as well as transfer to the appellant s own depots from where the impugned goods have been subsequently sold - Since, the appellants have paid duty on a different basis in these cases, following the ratio of the cited decisions, the matter requires to be remanded to the original authority for fresh decision taking into account the duty amounts that has already been paid and the duty amount that would be required to be paid, applying the valuation method under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, based on the assessable value at the factory gate to the independent buyers Time barred - Even though all the demands are on similar issue, the amounts are different relating to different consignments and the invoices and sales details of the same were not furnished by the appellants to the department - Mere filing of RT 12 returns showing consolidated figures for the entire month was not adequate to enable the department to ascertain the state of affairs as the invoices have not been submitted along with the RT 12 returns - The appeals are allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 regarding duty payment for goods transferred to own depots, applicability of time limits for demands, and submission of invoices for different consignments.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000:
The case involved factory gate sales to independent buyers and transfer of goods to the appellant's own depots for subsequent sales. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2010 261 ELT 695 and Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (209) ELT 185, to interpret Rule 7. It was held that when goods are sold to independent buyers at the time and place of removal, Rule 7 is not attracted. The assessable value should be determined under Rule 4 based on the value of factory gate sales to independent buyers. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision considering duty amounts already paid and required to be paid under Rule 4.

2. Applicability of time limits for demands:
The appellants argued that three demands were time-barred as multiple show cause notices were issued on the same issue. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this submission. It was noted that the demands related to different consignments, and the appellants did not provide detailed invoices or sales information to the department. Mere filing of RT 12 returns with consolidated figures was deemed insufficient to ascertain the state of affairs. Therefore, the time bar defense was rejected for these three appeals.

3. Submission of invoices for different consignments:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing detailed invoices and sales details for different consignments to the department. In this case, the appellants' failure to submit invoices along with RT 12 returns hindered the department's ability to assess the situation accurately. As a result, the ground of time bar was dismissed for these appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision based on the above considerations. The appellants were instructed to be given a fair hearing before a new order is passed. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the operative part of the order pronounced in open court on 02.03.11.