2007 (5) TMI 114 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation(Central Excise) - Alleged that assessable value declared by the appellant is not correct on the ground that he receive free supply from buyer and other supplier - Held that department contention was not correct and accept the assessable value

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value determination based on sale price vs. balance sheet value.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellants for M/s. Hindustan Lever. The appellants argued that the price charged should be considered as the assessable value, as it was based on a contract with Hindustan Lever and was at arm's length. They contended that the sale price should be accepted as assessable value, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Adjudicating Commissioner, however, had valued the goods based on the balance sheet value, including profit margin and excise duty. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, concluded that the appellants' case aligned with the Supreme Court decision and waived the pre-deposit requirement during the appeal process. The Tribunal found no evidence of free supplies to Hindustan Lever and accepted that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis. The appellants provided affidavits confirming purchases at fair market prices and no free supplies, which were not contradicted by the Department. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not received any raw materials or dies free of cost from Hindustan Lever and had supplied goods on a principal-to-principal basis. This fact, along with the lack of justification for assessing based on balance sheet value including excise duty, led the Tribunal to confirm that the appellants' case was in line with the Supreme Court decision. The Department did not provide any reasons for treating the appellants differently from other suppliers of Hindustan Lever, whose assessments were based on sale price or MRP. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits to the appellants.