2014 (8) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sale through depots - manufacturing and sale of hot rolled coils, cold rolled coils and various other products - Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2002 - Revenue has only taken into account the clearances made from the Depots where goods are sold at higher value and have not taken those clearances from depots where the goods were cleared at lower value. - Held that - It is the entire clearances which have to be taken into account and the assessee s liability has to be arrived at accordingly. The Revenue cannot pick only those matters where the goods were sold at higher rates from the depot and ignore the clearances which were ultimately sold at a lower value, though the duty was paid at the higher assessable value. As such, by following the ratio of the above decisions, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for re-examining the above aspects and also the aspect of limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Stay application and appeal against OIO No. 40/MP/2012-13 dated 19.03.2013 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Surat-I.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, filed a stay application and appeal against the order alleging short payment of duty, penalty, and interest for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2007. The appellant contended that duty should be paid at the prevailing depot price for similar goods under Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2002. The Revenue initiated proceedings despite the appellant depositing the differential duty and interest as per section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case was previously adjudicated, appealed, and remanded back for re-examination.

The appellant argued that Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules was not applicable, emphasizing the application of Rule 4 instead. They claimed to have overpaid &8377;1,61,97,998/- when considering all depot sales, both at higher and lower valuations. The Revenue was accused of selectively considering higher-value depot sales and neglecting lower-value sales in their calculations. Despite providing detailed calculations, the adjudicating authority dismissed the appellant's contentions.

The Revenue defended the adjudicating authority's decision, highlighting the appellant's failure to clarify the preparation of the worksheet as per the order-in-original. The bench, after reviewing the case records, noted that the entire clearances should be considered to determine the duty liability, as per the previous order. The matter was remanded back to re-quantify the duty liability in line with the previous bench's order, allowing the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing to present their case.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant was granted consequential relief, if any, following the observations made during the proceedings.