2017 (4) TMI 1208 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - assessable value of the goods cleared from the consignment agent s premises - Revenue s stand is that assessable value of the goods cleared from consignment s agent s premises is to be determined in accordance with Rule 7 without any variation to the mandate of the Rule - Held that - the value of clearances of the material period shall be determined as per law prescribed by Rule 2 (b) of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Rule 7 thereof - Where on the respective date sale price is not available for the purpose of ascertainment, the value of goods in time nearest i.e., immediate past, to the time of removal of the goods shall be considered for the purpose of Rule 7 - the appeal is remanded to the learned adjudicating authority for redoing the adjudication at the earliest issuing notice to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Valuation of goods cleared from consignment agent's premises under Rule 7 of Valuation Rule 2000.
2. Interpretation of normal transaction value under Rule 2(b) of Valuation Rule 2000.
3. Allegations of variation in goods sent to consignment agent.
4. Adjudicating authority exceeding jurisdiction by creating new issues beyond the show-cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of goods cleared from consignment agent's premises under Rule 7 of Valuation Rule 2000
The dispute revolved around the determination of the assessable value of goods cleared from the consignment agent's premises. The appellant argued that Rule 7 of the Valuation Rule 2000 provides for determining the value based on the normal transaction value at or about the same time of clearance. The appellant contended that the value should be ascertained based on the nearest past value, not the future value. The appellant challenged the order directing the adoption of subsequent day's aggregate value as assessable value, emphasizing the need to consider the value closest to the time of removal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of normal transaction value under Rule 2(b) of Valuation Rule 2000
The appellant highlighted the definition of "normal transaction value" under Rule 2(b) as the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods is sold. The appellant argued that Rule 7, read with Rule 2, outlines the method for determining the transaction value of clearances made at the consignment agent's premises. The appellant referred to Board Circular No. 354/81/200-TRU, supporting the use of the nearest past aggregate value for valuation. The appellant emphasized the importance of adhering to the law and circular guidelines for determining the value of goods cleared from the consignment agent's premises.

Issue 3: Allegations of variation in goods sent to consignment agent
The appellant contested the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the alleged variation in goods sent to the consignment agent's premises. The appellant argued that there was no mention of varied quantity or quality in the show-cause notice, questioning the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to introduce new issues beyond the notice. The appellant stressed that without proper allegations, the authority should not consider variations in goods, placing the burden of proof on the Revenue to substantiate any claims of variation.

Issue 4: Adjudicating authority exceeding jurisdiction by creating new issues beyond the show-cause notice
The appellant raised concerns about the adjudicating authority exceeding its jurisdiction by introducing new issues not covered in the show-cause notice. The appellant emphasized the need for the authority to confine the examination to the allegations in the notice and not create new grounds for adjudication. The appellant sought a fair and judicious review of the case, ensuring that the authority follows the prescribed law and guidelines without imposing penalties due to the interpretational nature of the case.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the assessable value following the relevant laws and circular guidelines, considering the clearance statements submitted by the appellant. The authority was instructed to focus on the immediate past value for valuation, avoid exceeding the scope of the circular, and provide the appellant with opportunities for rebuttal. The tribunal emphasized the importance of resolving disputes based on the law, restricting examination to the allegations in the show-cause notice, and issuing a reasoned order within three months.

← Previous Next →