2015 (11) TMI 964 - SC - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Held that - Revenue contended that the CESTAT has not discussed the facts of the present case appropriately and has accepted the version of the respondent-assessee blindly without even going into the documents, more particularly, the so called forward contract entered into between M/s. L&T and the assessee which was not even produced by the assessee. He submitted that the finding that the transaction was not at arm s length which was arrived at on the basis of material on record after detailed discussion has not even been commented upon and is side-tracked. On these facts, his submission was that the judgment of this court in H.B.L. Aircraft Batteries Ltd. could not have been mechanically applied. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Discrepancy in valuation of Spirally Welded MS Pipes for excise duty calculation; Arm's length transaction between the manufacturer and buyer; Application of judgment in 'H.B.L. Aircraft Batteries Ltd.' case.

Analysis:

1. Valuation Discrepancy: The case involved a discrepancy in the valuation of Spirally Welded MS Pipes for excise duty calculation. The respondent, a manufacturer, had executed a work order for a Water Supply Project, supplying the pipes at a rate lower than the market price. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice demanding differential duty, alleging that the value declared for excise duty was lower than the actual price paid by the buyer to the supplier, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL).

2. Arm's Length Transaction: The respondent contended that there was a forward contract with the buyer for a fixed period at the agreed price. However, the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) found the transaction to be not at arm's length, with the price being suppressed. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the respondent's appeal, citing the 'H.B.L. Aircraft Batteries Ltd.' case judgment.

3. Application of Precedent: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that the CESTAT had not appropriately discussed the facts of the case and accepted the respondent's version without thorough examination of the documents, including the alleged forward contract. The Court agreed with the Revenue's submission that the transaction not being at arm's length was a crucial aspect that needed detailed consideration. The Court set aside the CESTAT's order and remitted the case back to CESTAT for a fresh decision after considering all relevant aspects highlighted by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the transaction to determine the correct valuation for excise duty calculation. The case highlights the importance of ensuring arm's length transactions and thorough analysis of all relevant documents in excise duty disputes.