2013 (12) TMI 1186 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Payment of duty for the clearances made to their depot in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 r.w. Rule 7 read with Section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excise Act Held that - The assessee seems to believe that the goods which were cleared from the factory gate to the depot on a certain date at a certain price should necessarily be sold from the depot at the same price as far as possible on the same date and the amount of duty paid at factory gate should be recovered from the ultimate buyer so as to justify the determination of assessable value of the goods cleared from factory in terms of Rule 7 - The compilation of invoices (both factory gate and depot) produced is part of the assessee s endeavour to make out this sort of a case matter remanded to the original authority to take fresh view on the valuation issue after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Waiver and stay in respect of duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Correct assessable value for payment of duty.
3. Contradictory findings in appellate authority's orders.
4. Valuation of goods under Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000.
5. Discrepancy between findings and conclusion in the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver and stay regarding duty, interest, and penalty amounting to over Rs. 15 lakhs. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal without pre-deposit after perusing the records and hearing both sides.

2. The appeal was against the appellate Commissioner's order upholding the demand of duty on goods cleared from the factory to the depot. The department alleged that the correct assessable value was not adopted for payment of duty. The appellant claimed that the goods were cleared at the same price from the factory and the depot, but this claim was not substantiated, leading to upholding of the original order.

3. The appellant argued that the appellate authority's conclusion was contradictory to its findings, citing a similar favorable order passed a week before. The appellant submitted specimen invoices to support their case and requested setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal found the case fit for remand due to the valuation dispute.

4. The substantive issue revolved around the valuation of goods under Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000. The appellant believed that goods cleared from the factory should be sold at the same price from the depot to justify the assessable value. The Tribunal noted a mismatch between findings and conclusion in the impugned order, leading to setting it aside and allowing the appeal for remand.

5. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the original authority to reexamine the valuation issue after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The authority was instructed to pass a detailed order on all issues without being influenced by any observations in the current order. The stay application was also disposed of.