2017 (3) TMI 1849 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - MRP based assessment - allegation is that during the period under consideration, the MRP was fixed less and for the rest of the period no MRP was fixed - reassessment of value for the purpose of Excise Duty - validity of assessment made under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - levy of penalties on Directors and the Companies - period under consideration (2003 to 2006) - HELD THAT - It was held in the case of CCE RAJKOT AND OTHERS VERSUS CITIZEN CERAMIC AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 821 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that when the Rules came w.e.f. 01.03.2008, the ascertaining of value of similar goods has to be done w.e.f. 01.03.2008 and cannot be used to determine the value of the clearances made prior to 01.03.2008. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal regarding MRP based assessment under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi, concerning MRP based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee-Appellants were engaged in manufacturing paints and anti-rust preparations, selling goods under their brand name 'Glossy', and under the brand names 'FUCOT' for other companies. The Department re-assessed the value for Excise Duty, imposing penalties on the Directors and Companies, due to discrepancies in MRP declaration compared to actual selling prices. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leading to the impugned order repeating the same findings.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the assessee-Appellants argued that the re-assessment was incorrect as it was done under Section 4A, which was not applicable to the period in dispute (2003 to 2006). Citing relevant case laws, the counsel contended that ascertaining the value of goods should align with the rules in force during the relevant period. Relying on precedents, it was argued that the rules effective from 01.03.2008 could not be applied retroactively to determine the value of clearances made before that date.

In line with the arguments presented, the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the impugned order and consequently set it aside entirely. As a result, all appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court by the presiding members.