2010 (8) TMI 510 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - The appellate authority observed that inasmuch as there is no dispute about the price at which the goods were cleared, differential duty cannot be recovered on the sole ground that revised price declaration was not filed - price declared under Rule 173C merely because the assessee did not file revised price declaration, department cannot recover the duty on the basis of earlier price declaration - As correctly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), failure on the part of the assessee to file revised declaration cannot be made the basis for confirmation of demand on the basis of earlier declaration - Appeal filed by the Revenue is, accordingly, rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confirmation of demand of duty.
2. Dispute over the requirement of filing a revised declaration under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Applicability of duty of Excise on sale price versus price declared under Rule 173C.
4. Revenue's contention on the necessity of filing a revised declaration by the assessee.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the confirmation of a duty demand. The respondents were issued a show cause notice for clearing goods at a price lower than declared, leading to a demand of duty. The original adjudicating authority vacated the notice based on merit and limitation.

2. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority noted that duty of Excise is leviable on the sale price, not the declared price under Rule 173C. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, emphasizing that failure to file a revised declaration cannot justify the recovery of duty based on the initial declaration.

3. The Revenue further appealed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, reiterating their stance on the necessity of a revised declaration by the assessee. However, the Appellate Tribunal found no fault in the lower authorities' reasoning. The Revenue did not contest the sale price but insisted on the revised declaration, which was deemed insufficient by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, concluding that the failure to file a revised declaration cannot serve as a basis for confirming the demand based on the initial declaration. As a result, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the order of the lower authorities was upheld.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by the parties involved, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.