2012 (9) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance of provisional assessment in terms of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules - Held that - As the appellant manufacture and clear more than 1000 varieties of printing ink which are sold from the depots and due to variety of factors such as market forces, competition, quality and the quantity taken up by the purchaser, they are not able to determine the greatest aggregate value of the goods in terms of the Valuation Rules - thus considering genuine difficulties in ascertaining the normal transaction value for goods cleared there was no reason for disallowing the facility of provisional assessment as also the appellant is enjoying such facility of provisional assessment in respect of similar products cleared from their factory at Mumbai - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against setting aside provisional assessment
- Validity of grounds for allowing provisional assessment

Analysis:
1. Appeal against setting aside provisional assessment:
The Appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the lower Adjudicating Authority's Order allowing provisional assessment. The Respondent, engaged in manufacturing printing ink, applied for provisional assessment due to the inability to ascertain the price of products at the time of clearance from the factory to depots. The lower Adjudicating Authority disallowed this, but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed provisional assessment. The Revenue contended that the grounds for allowing provisional assessment were not legally valid, as the value of goods could be easily ascertained from online facilities when sold from depots. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found merit in the Respondent's genuine difficulties in determining the normal transaction value due to the variety of inks sold at different times, upholding the provisional assessment.

2. Validity of grounds for allowing provisional assessment:
The Revenue argued that the grounds for allowing provisional assessment, i.e., the variety of inks sold and the facility enjoyed at the Mumbai factory, were not legally valid. They contended that the Valuation Rules did not exclude such situations for determining the value of goods and that the value could be easily ascertained when goods were sold from depots. On the other hand, the Respondent's advocate highlighted the manufacturing of nearly 1000 varieties of inks and referred to a Mumbai Commissionerate order supporting provisional assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, noting the genuine difficulties faced by the Respondent in determining the value of goods due to various factors, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision allowing provisional assessment for the Respondent, emphasizing the practical difficulties faced in determining the value of goods sold from depots due to the wide variety of products and market factors. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances and challenges faced by manufacturers in assessing duty payments, ultimately affirming the provisional assessment facility for the Respondent in this case.