2007 (4) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) Appellant contended that impugned good(footwear) were notified u/s 4A of the CEA,1944 and therefore the maximum value appearing under SH No. 6401.12 is required to be determined u/s 4A(2)OF CEA,1944 Held that appellant contention was correct and allowed

Summary

Issues: Determination of value for excise duty calculation on Footwears supplied to a Government organization.

Analysis:
1. The appellants supplied Footwears to a Government organization and claimed Nil rate of duty under sub-heading No. 6401.12, arguing that the value of the footwear did not exceed Rs. 75/- per pair. They contended that the goods were notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, requiring the value determination under sub-section (2) of Section 4A. The Ld. Consultant for the appellants highlighted that the abatement of 50% on the retail sale price was admissible for the impugned goods as per Notification No. 40/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-8-97, bringing the value of the goods below Rs. 75.00 stipulated under sub-heading No. 6401.12.

2. The Ld. Consultant emphasized that the price of the footwears was contract-based with no additional charges from customers, making it the final maximum retail sale price. The abatement of 50% notified by the Government further supported the argument that the value of the impugned goods was below Rs. 75.00. The Tribunal acknowledged the correctness of the appellants' legal argument, noting that as the goods were notified under Section 4A, the value determination had to follow sub-section 4A(2) based on the retail sale price with abatements.

3. The Tribunal found that since the appellants had sold the impugned goods to a Government agency at a known price, and the percentage of abatement was notified by the Government, there should be no dispute in determining the value of the goods. Consequently, the assessment of the impugned footwear at Nil rate under sub-heading No. 6401.12 was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the clarity in determining the value of the goods below the specified threshold, leading to the correct assessment at Nil rate of duty.