2018 (8) TMI 781 - AT - Central Excise

Finalization of provisional assessment - Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Since the information in respect of such goods such as the cost of transportation from the factory to where the sale took place was not known in advance, Provisional Assessment was done, Held that - The issue is no more res-integra since it has been decided by this Tribunal in appellants own case M/S UAL UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD 2018 (8) TMI 413 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where it was held that after ordering Provisional Assessment for want of data on cost of transportation subsequently Revenue cannot change its stand and order finalization of assessment by invoking the said Rule 7 - Matter remanded back to the Original Adjudicating authority with a direction to finalize the assessment by resorting to provisions of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, after setting aside the impugned order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional assessment of duty for Asbestos Cement Products under Chapter 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Invocation of Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for finalizing provisional assessment.
3. Application of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for assessment.
4. Remand of the matter to the Original Adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad, regarding provisional assessment of duty for Asbestos Cement Products under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were involved in manufacturing these products and were clearing goods on payment of duty from the factory, as well as transferring goods to Depots and Consignment Agents. Provisional assessment was ordered due to lack of information on transportation costs in advance. The Original Authority confirmed a demand, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed finalization of provisional assessment using Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in the appellant's own case through a previous Final Order. The Tribunal found that the Final Order pertained to a different period and remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed the authority to finalize the assessment by applying Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, setting aside the impugned order. The Original Authority was instructed to re-determine duty payable or refundable to the assessee, with immediate refund if applicable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the application of Rule 5 for assessment and the need for the Original Authority to re-determine duty or refund accordingly. The judgment focused on ensuring proper valuation and assessment of excisable goods, providing clarity on the process to be followed in such cases.