2016 (8) TMI 127 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation - petroleum products - difference in quantity of petroleum products at normal temperature room temperature converted to the notional temperature of 15 degree temperature - Held that - Considering the aforesaid facts, in our view, the issue being of valuation of the excisable goods, the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the appellant, if so, advised, may avail of appropriate remedy before Hon ble the Supreme Court. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Central Excise Duty paid on transaction value converted to notional temperature amounts to short payment of duty and if the method adopted for payment of duty complies with Central Excise Law.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue to consider if the Central Excise Duty paid on the quantity of petroleum products at normal temperature, converted to a notional temperature of 15 degrees, results in short payment of duty and if the method used aligns with Central Excise Law. The Assessee raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeal, citing Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, arguing that as the dispute concerns the valuation of excisable goods, the appeal is not maintainable. The appellant contended that the issue pertains to the quantum and volume of goods, not valuation.

The Tribunal analyzed the matter, referring to Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, which governs the valuation of excisable goods for duty charging purposes. The Tribunal's observations highlighted that if the price is the sole consideration for the sale, it would be the transaction value for calculating excise duty. The Tribunal found that the goods were cleared on payment of excise duty based on the declared price in the invoices, with no evidence of related parties or additional consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had correctly paid excise duty as per the transaction value under Section 4 of the Act, dismissing the under-valuation allegations.

Ultimately, the High Court determined that the issue revolved around the valuation of excisable goods, making the appeal not maintainable before the Court. The appeal was dismissed on this basis, with the option for the appellant to seek recourse before the Supreme Court if desired. The judgment emphasized the importance of transaction value and compliance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act in determining excise duty obligations.