2014 (8) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Recall of order - non compliance of pre deposit order - Valuation of goods - Department has taken a view that duty should have been paid as per the provision of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules - Held that - appellants have the detailed worksheet showing the price charged to independent buyers during the relevant time and as per the Tribunals Larger Bench decision in the case Ispat Industries Ltd. 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , the procedure followed by the appellants is correct - Commissioners need not have required the appellants to make any pre-deposit for hearing the appeal - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal for recall of interim order, non-compliance with stay order, valuation of goods cleared to sister concerns, interpretation of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Ispat Industries Ltd. case, grant of unconditional waiver of pre-deposit by Commissioner, remand of matters for decision without pre-deposit.

Analysis:

1. Appeal for Recall of Interim Order:
The judgment addresses a miscellaneous application for the recall of an interim order passed by the Tribunal in appeal No. ST/28212/2013. The Tribunal dismisses the application as infructuous since the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing, indicating that the issue of the interim order is no longer relevant.

2. Non-compliance with Stay Order:
Both appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order issued by the Commissioner, which required the appellants to deposit 50% of the duty demanded. The appellants argued that the issue at hand pertained to the valuation of goods cleared to their sister concerns. They contended that they had correctly valued the goods based on the price charged to individual buyers for clearance to related concerns. However, the department insisted on payment as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules.

3. Interpretation of Valuation Rules:
The appellants presented detailed worksheets demonstrating the prices charged to independent buyers during the relevant period. They relied on a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. to support their valuation method. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the Commissioner should not have required any pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Commissioner with instructions to decide the issues without insisting on any pre-deposit.

4. Grant of Unconditional Waiver:
It was highlighted that the same Commissioner had granted unconditional waivers of pre-deposit and stays for subsequent periods, indicating inconsistency in the Commissioner's approach. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matters for a fresh decision without pre-deposit suggests a correction of this inconsistency and a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.

In conclusion, the judgment resolves the issues related to the recall of an interim order, non-compliance with a stay order, interpretation of valuation rules, and the grant of waivers by the Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matters for a fresh decision without pre-deposit reflects a fair and just approach to the case.