2007 (11) TMI 20 - SC - Central Excise

Amount recovered above the value declared in price list Typographical error in price list in writing the price No evidence regarding additional recovery Finding recorded by Tribunal that there is short levy of payable excise duty is not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential demand raised by the Department based on discrepancies in price lists.
2. Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal and subsequent application for rectification of mistake.
3. Clerical/typing error in price lists and standard fitments of chassis.
4. Interpretation of Central Excise Act regarding assessable value and excise duty payment.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Department raised a differential demand against the appellant based on discrepancies in the price lists submitted by the appellant, leading to show cause notices and subsequent confirmation by the Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, which was based on the contention that duty was paid at the invoice price, and no extra amount was collected from customers. This discrepancy in valuation led to the filing of appeals challenging the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 2:
After the Tribunal's initial dismissal of the appeal, the appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake, which resulted in a difference of opinion within the Tribunal. The Member (Judicial) allowed the application, citing grounds raised during earlier arguments, while the Member (Technical) dismissed it based on inherency. The subsequent appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision on the rectification application, leading to further legal scrutiny.

Issue 3:
The appellant argued that a clerical/typing error in the price lists led to the mention of incorrect engine and gear box models, which were not the standard fitments for the chassis in question. The appellant provided evidence such as statutory cost audit reports and certifications to support the claim that the correct standard fitments were engine no. 697 NA and gear box GBS 40. The Tribunal's oversight of this evidence was highlighted as a basis for the appeal.

Issue 4:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of the Central Excise Act regarding the assessable value of goods and the payment of excise duty. It was emphasized that the appellant had paid duty based on the entire price charged from customers, with no additional amount realized beyond the invoice price. The invoices and lack of evidence supporting the Department's claim of short levy of excise duty further strengthened the appellant's position, leading to the allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the Tribunal's orders.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and emphasizing the importance of evidence and proper valuation under the Central Excise Act.