2011 (3) TMI 772 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Undervaluation - Transaction value in respect of 3 invoices - Adopted less transaction value inasmuch as according to the respondents - The lower authority has demanded the differential duty in respect of three fake/fictitious consignees wherein only invoices were issued but no computerized sheet/packing lists etc were prepared and attached - the pleas of the Revenue are based upon the assumptions and presumptions and not on any concrete evidence to show that there was actually under-valuation and the differential amount stand received by the respondent - There is no such allegation upon the flow back of money from the buyers to the respondents - As such the transaction value reflected in the said invoice has to be taken as correct assessable value - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Under-valuation of goods for duty payment based on transaction value, imposition of penalty, appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).

Under-valuation of Goods:
The case involved the respondents engaged in manufacturing V Belts who cleared goods at a lower transaction value for allegedly defective products. The Revenue initiated proceedings against them for under-valuation, raising a demand of duty and imposing penalties. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and penalties, which were later appealed by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, emphasizing that the transaction value should be considered the correct assessable value for duty payment under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner found no evidence of additional cash flow or under-valuation beyond the transaction value, leading to the rejection of the demand and penalties.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Revenue contended that the respondents deliberately avoided preparing necessary documents like computerized sheets and packing lists to evade excise duty. They also argued that the quality of goods was not inferior as claimed by the respondents, as per the Chemical Examiner's report. However, the Tribunal noted that these arguments were based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence to prove under-valuation or any flow back of money from buyers to the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that without evidence of such flow back, the transaction value indicated in the invoices should be accepted as the correct assessable value for duty payment.

Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
Upon reviewing the impugned order and the Revenue's grounds of appeal, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's claims of under-valuation and confirming that the transaction value should be considered the correct assessable value for duty payment. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in proving under-valuation for duty payment and emphasizes the transaction value as the assessable value in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.