2015 (1) TMI 450 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Section 4 - impugned order held that such sales were to the related person and therefore the valuation has to be done as per the sale - Held that - It is not that the assessee cleared goods clandestinely. The assessee have contended that they had a bonafide belief that they and M/s. DD Sales Corporation were not related. There is nothing in the Show Cause Notice which brings out wilfull misstatement/suppression. Instead of indulging in as idle parade of familiar authority in this regard, suffice to say that CESTAT itself in the inter partes proceedings for a different period on identical issue vide order dated 30.10.2009 set aside similar penalties and we have no reason to hold differently. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues Involved: Valuation of goods sold to a related person, consideration of turnover discount and cash discount, benefit of cum duty price, imposition of penalty for suppression of facts

Valuation of Goods Sold to a Related Person:
The appeal was filed against the Orders-in-Appeal upholding the Orders-in-Original confirming the duty amount for goods sold to a related person. The issue revolved around whether the sales to M/s. DD Sales Corporation, a related entity, should be valued based on their sale price. The CESTAT in an earlier order held that the sale prices of the related entity should be considered for assessment. The penalties on the company and directors were set aside in the earlier order.

Consideration of Turnover Discount and Cash Discount:
The appellants argued that they were not related to M/s. DD Sales Corporation and were entitled to turnover and cash discounts. They contended that these discounts were part of the discount policy of the related entity and should have been considered. The appellants provided evidence of these discounts, stating that they are not always shown in invoices and should not be a criterion for disallowance. The issue of cum duty price benefit was also raised, claiming that it was not extended to them despite being granted in a previous order by the Commissioner.

Imposition of Penalty for Suppression of Facts:
The Revenue appealed against the dropping of penalties, alleging that the appellants suppressed facts and evaded duty. The Revenue argued that the appellants did not assess goods as per Valuation Rules and the directors were willfully involved in the acts. However, the CESTAT found that the issue was purely about valuation and not clandestine clearance of goods. The CESTAT noted that there was no willful misstatement or suppression evident in the Show Cause Notice and referred to a previous order where similar penalties were set aside.

Judgment and Directions:
The CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority. The CESTAT directed the authority to reconsider the evidence of turnover and cash discounts without relying on their absence in invoices. The claim for cum-duty benefit was also to be reviewed, considering the benefit granted in a previous order. The appellants were to be given an opportunity to be heard during the denovo adjudication process.