2015 (10) TMI 1814 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Determination of assessable value - Held that - It is seen that M/s Nilkamal is getting goods manufactured from other manufacturers also and identical disputes were raised at their end also. One of such cases came before the Tribunal s Delhi Bench and vide Stay Order Nos. 1960-1961/2012 dated 03.12.2012 passed in the case of M/s Punjab Telenet Cables Ltd., unconditional stay was granted. - appellant is entitled to unconditional stay. We order accordingly. We further note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order passed by him directing to deposit the entire duty and a part of the penalty. As the appellants have been granted unconditional stay, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), for decision on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. Appellant would be given an opportunity to draw attention of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the precedent decisions of the Tribunal. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay excise duty on the final value of goods sold by another company.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to unconditional stay against the demand raised by the Revenue.
3. Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the stay order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of the appellant to pay excise duty on the final value of goods sold by another company
The appellant, a manufacturer of Plastic Moulded Articles for a company named Nilkamal, faced a demand from the Revenue to pay excise duty on the final value at which Nilkamal sold the goods to customers. The appellant added the cost of moulds provided by Nilkamal in the assessable value of the final products. The Tribunal noted that similar disputes arose with other manufacturers providing goods to Nilkamal. Referring to a case involving M/s Punjab Telenet Cables Ltd., the Tribunal granted unconditional stay to the appellant, considering the decisions of the Tribunal on the disputed issue. The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to unconditional stay, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without requiring any pre-deposit.

Issue 2: Entitlement of the appellant to unconditional stay against the demand raised by the Revenue
The Tribunal found that the appellant, being granted unconditional stay, should not be compelled to comply with the stay order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the deposit of duty and part of the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have the opportunity to present the Tribunal's precedent decisions to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the stay and appeal in favor of the appellant, ensuring that the matter is reconsidered by the Commissioner (Appeals) without insisting on any pre-deposit.

Issue 3: Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the stay order
The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the stay order requiring the deposit of duty and a portion of the penalty. However, since the appellant was granted unconditional stay by the Tribunal, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed that the appellant should not be obligated to make any pre-deposit and should be allowed to draw attention to the Tribunal's precedent decisions during the reconsideration process.

Overall, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant by granting unconditional stay and ensuring a fair reconsideration of the case by the Commissioner (Appeals) without imposing any pre-deposit requirements.