2015 (10) TMI 1209 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Determination of assessable value - Held that - It is seen that the issue involved in the present case is identical and facts are similar. We agree with the above decisions of this Hon ble Tribunal 2007 (11) TMI 164 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and 2008 (6) TMI 514 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD . We also hold that the transaction value declared by the respondent cannot be disregarded and value of export cannot be adopted for such DTA clearances. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Discrepancy in goods clearance value - Show Cause Notice for Central Excise duty - Dispute over assessable value - Applicability of transaction value for duty computation - Tribunal's precedent in similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a dispute over the assessable value of goods cleared by the Respondent. The Respondent had cleared goods at a rate lower than the value of identical goods cleared as deemed exports to another entity. This led to a Show Cause Notice demanding Central Excise duty from the Respondent amounting to Rs. 8,04,856. The original adjudicating authority confirmed this demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the Respondent's appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in similar cases. Citing the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, the Tribunal emphasized that the value of domestic clearances need not be the same as the value of exports. The transaction value declared by the Respondent was considered valid for duty payment, especially when there was no evidence of manipulation. The Tribunal also mentioned the case of Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, supporting the use of transaction price for customs valuation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal reiterated its stance in the case of Banyan Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I, where it was held that export prices should not necessarily dictate the value of domestic sales. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the transaction value declared by the Respondent should not be disregarded, and the value of exports cannot be applied to domestic clearances. The decision was based on the consistency of previous Tribunal rulings and the lack of evidence to support a different valuation method.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of transaction value for duty computation in domestic clearances and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.