2017 (8) TMI 894 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - it was alleged that the price charged by the appellant from its customers through the debit notes was much higher than the sale price claimed to have been charged by it from its consumers - Held that - Records demonstrate non-production of the documents before adjudicating authority. Therefore, it is not practically possible to appreciate plea of the appellant that it had charged amount lower than the amount charged through debit notes, in absence of documents produced before Tribunal. Time limitation - Held that - adjudication cannot be said to be time-barred when there was deliberate suppression of sale value in the return. Therefore liability to duty and penalty arises on the facts and circumstances of the case, followed by interest. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods based on sales price, Suppression of sale price, Time-barred adjudication

Valuation of goods based on sales price:
The judgment highlighted that the appellant failed to produce the sales invoice to determine the assessable value of goods cleared. It was noted that the price charged through debit notes was significantly higher than the claimed sale price to consumers. The Tribunal emphasized that the price charged to buyers at the time of clearance was crucial for excise duty calculation, regardless of the price charged to consumers. The appellant's argument citing previous decisions was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting their claim.

Suppression of sale price:
The Revenue contended that the appellant suppressed the actual sale price from buyers by not issuing sales or excise invoices. Despite the appellant's assertion of paying sales tax, no invoices under Sales Tax laws were produced for scrutiny. The non-production of relevant documents hindered the Tribunal from accepting the appellant's claim of charging lower amounts than stated in the debit notes. The failure to substantiate the valuation stand before the adjudicating authority was deemed as deliberate suppression, leading to the imposition of duty, penalty, and interest.

Time-barred adjudication:
The appellant argued that the adjudication was time-barred, but the Revenue countered by pointing out the lack of evidence and deliberate non-disclosure of the proper assessable value in the returns. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stance, justifying the invocation of the extended period due to the appellant's inability to provide supporting documents even after a decade. As a result, the appellant's appeal was dismissed based on the founded stand of the Revenue.