2018 (6) TMI 241 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sale in the course of Wholesale trade - Section 4(1)(a) of CEA - Whether the appellant adopted correct price of the caustic soda for clearance from one plant M/s Century Chemicals to another plant M/s Century Rayon which are the two plants of Century Textile and Industries Ltd. and thereby paid correct duty hereon? - Held that - In the case where for goods used or consumed by the assessee or on his behalf in production of other articles, it is a general factory gate price at which the goods are sold in whole sale trade to independent buyers and under Section 4(1)(a) is to be adopted rather than price to some particular buyer /contract price - reliance placed in the case of SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD. Versus CCE, ALLAHABAD 2009 (7) TMI 293 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that while applying Rule 6(b)(i), it is the general factory gate price under Section 4(1)(a) to be adopted. The appellant has adopted the correct price - no demand can be made against the Appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Correct price adoption for clearance of goods between two plants of the same company.
2. Application of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Interpretation of normal price for goods sold in wholesale trade.
4. Revenue neutrality in cases of goods cleared to sister concerns.
5. Comparison of general factory gate price with contract price for assessable value determination.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether the correct price of caustic soda was adopted for clearance between two plants of the same company, leading to the payment of the correct duty. The appellant had declared two price lists, one for wholesale trade and the other for a contractual price with a specific buyer. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand based on the sale price to the specific buyer, considering the goods capable of being sold at that price.

2. The central issue revolved around the application of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in determining the assessable value for excise duty. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to establish that the general factory gate price under Section 4(1)(a) should be adopted for goods used or consumed in the production of other articles, rather than a price specific to a particular buyer or a contract price.

3. The interpretation of the normal price for goods sold in wholesale trade was crucial in this case. The appellant argued that different prices for different classes of buyers were recognized under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that the general wholesale price at the factory gate should be the representative price for assessable value determination.

4. The concept of revenue neutrality in cases of goods cleared to sister concerns was discussed, emphasizing that any duty payable would be available as credit to the own unit, making the entire exercise revenue neutral. This principle was supported by a previous judgment cited during the proceedings.

5. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential reliefs to the appellant. The decision was based on the finding that the appellant had adopted the correct price in accordance with the legal interpretations discussed during the proceedings, thereby rejecting the demand made against the Appellant.

← Previous Next →