2014 (2) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Non adherence to provisions of Central Excise Law as regards valuation of goods manufactured and cleared by them - Demand of differential duty - Held that - Undisputed by the goods were cleared from factory premises of the appellant declaring a price and discharging applicable excise duty on such rate, and not on the price at which M/s US Vitamins sold the products in the market. It is also undisputed that the demand of duty is on the differential value between contracted price and actual price on which duty is discharged - adjudicating authority has abandoned the allegations made in the show cause notice and has held that the price charged by M/s US Vitamins Ltd., cannot be the price on which excise duty can be demanded from the main appellant. Having recorded such findings, the adjudicating authority in all fairness should have dropped the proceedings initiated but he has gone beyond the allegations and has confirmed demands by recordings findings which were not alleged in the show cause notice, hence could not be met by the main appellant - Therefore, impugned orders that confirms the demands, interest and imposes penalties on all appellants on a ground different than the allegations made in the show cause notice, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegations of undervaluation of goods for Central Excise duty
- Consideration of price charged by another company for excise duty valuation
- Discrepancies in duty calculation and adjudication process

Issue 1: Allegations of undervaluation of goods for Central Excise duty

The case involved three appeals against an Order-in-Original (OIO) issued by the Central Excise Department regarding undervaluation of goods manufactured by the main appellant, a pharmaceutical company. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the valuation of goods cleared by the main appellant. The show cause notice alleged undervaluation, leading to demands for duty payment, interest, and penalties. The appellants contested the notice, leading to denovo adjudication. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, prompting the appeals before the tribunal.

Issue 2: Consideration of price charged by another company for excise duty valuation

The main contention revolved around whether the duty liability should be based on the price at which another company, M/s US Vitamins, sold the goods in the market. The appellant argued that the duty should be discharged based on the price at which they sold the goods to M/s US Vitamins, not the subsequent market price. The adjudicating authority, however, abandoned the show cause notice allegations and held that duty should be calculated based on the price at which the main appellant sold the goods. This departure from the allegations in the notice was considered fatal to the revenue's case, as per legal precedents emphasizing the importance of the show cause notice as the foundation for duty determination.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in duty calculation and adjudication process

The tribunal analyzed the findings of the adjudicating authority and highlighted the failure to adhere to the allegations in the show cause notice. The authority's decision to confirm demands based on grounds not raised in the notice was deemed unsustainable. Citing legal precedents, including judgments by the apex court, the tribunal emphasized the necessity for the revenue to establish its case within the framework of the show cause notice. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing their appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad highlighted the importance of adherence to the allegations in the show cause notice in determining duty liabilities. The discrepancies in the duty calculation process and the departure from the notice's content led to the unsustainable confirmation of demands, interest, and penalties. The tribunal's decision to set aside the orders and allow the appeals underscored the significance of procedural fairness and legal principles in excise duty adjudication.