2016 (3) TMI 481 - AT - Central Excise

Differential duty demand - demand arose on account of the fact that the appellant cleared the goods from its depot at a price higher than the price at which the duty was paid at the time of clearance from the factory - Held that - We find that the SCN clearly brings out the difference in prices between the goods sold from the depot and the value shows in the invoices at the time of the paying duty in the factory. We find that the value determined as per the chart enclosed with the SCN (in terms of which the differential duty has been worked out) is in conformity with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The provisions of the said Rules 5 & 7 are so unambiguous that there was no scope for the appellant to entertain any reasonable belief regarding the value at which the duty was payable. A reasonable belief is the belief of a reasonable person operating in an appropriate environment. It is not a hallucinatory belief. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the appellant had a reasonable belief in this regard. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Differential duty demand confirmed due to goods cleared at a higher price from depot than at the time of factory clearance.
- Interpretation of Rule 5 and Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules.
- Reasonableness of appellant's belief regarding the payable duty value.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming a differential duty demand of Rs. 56,369 along with interest and penalty. The demand arose because the appellant cleared goods from the depot at a higher price than the duty paid at the factory clearance. The Primary Adjudicating Authority referred to Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, which states that excisable goods sold in certain circumstances shall be deemed to have a value excluding transportation cost from the place of removal to the place of delivery. The SCN clearly showed the difference in prices between goods sold from the depot and the value at the time of factory clearance, confirming the demand.

The appellant's advocate requested a decision on merits, while the Ld. DR argued that the demand was sustainable as per the primary adjudication order upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal considered both sides' contentions and records, finding that Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules explicitly states that transportation cost from the factory to the place of removal shall not be excluded for determining the value of excisable goods. In this case, the depot was deemed the place of removal. Additionally, Rule 7 addresses situations where goods are transferred to a depot for sale, stating that the value should be the normal transaction value at or about the same time as removal.

The Tribunal concluded that the value determined in the SCN, leading to the differential duty, aligned with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. It emphasized that the rules were unambiguous, leaving no room for the appellant to have a reasonable belief about the duty payable value. A reasonable belief is defined as that of a reasonable person in a suitable environment, not a hallucinatory belief. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order and dismissed the appeal.