9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 243 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - Sabeena detergent scouring bars - appellant have assessed Sabeena detergent scouring bars on MRP based assessment and are paying duty adopting valuation under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, whereas Kite detergent bar 75 gms were assessed under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - N/N. 13/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - Held that - The definition of Retail Sale Price in both Section 4A and Rule 2 of the PC Rules, 1977 make it clear that it is the price at which the goods are sold to the ultimate consumer whereas in the present case, there is no sale of detergent cake to the ultimate consumer therefore the valuation based on MRP will not apply. The appellants have disclosed the valuation method in their return from where the Department discovered the valuation method followed by the appellant. Further, the appellant paid the differential duty on the ground that the same would be available to their sister concern as CENVAT credit. Also, it is found that against the buyer which is a sister concern, separate proceedings were commenced for denying the CENVAT credit on duty paid by the appellant but the same was resolved in favor of the purchaser. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Valuation of goods under Section 4A vs. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Applicability of Notification No. 13/2002-CE for assessment based on retail sale price - Allegations of short payment of duty and imposition of penalty - Disclosure by the appellant and payment of differential duty before SCN issuance Valuation under Section 4A vs. Section 4: The appeal addressed the issue of valuation of goods under Section 4A and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants were found to have wrongly valued the 'Kite' brand detergent bar under Section 4 instead of Section 4A, leading to short payment of duty. The Tribunal noted that the goods were covered under Notification No. 13/2002-CE for valuation based on retail sale price under Section 4A. However, as there was no sale to the ultimate consumer, the valuation based on MRP did not apply, as established in precedent cases. The appellant had disclosed their valuation method in their return, and the differential duty was paid after being informed by the Range Superintendent. Applicability of Notification No. 13/2002-CE: The issue of whether the goods fell under Notification No. 13/2002-CE for assessment based on retail sale price was crucial. The Tribunal found that the definition of "Retail Sale Price" under Section 4A and Rule 2 of the PC Rules clarified that it applied to sales to the ultimate consumer. Since there was no sale of the detergent cake to the ultimate consumer, the valuation based on MRP was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support this interpretation. Allegations of Short Payment of Duty and Penalty Imposition: The case involved allegations of short payment of duty, leading to the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The appellant had paid the differential duty along with interest upon being informed by the Range Superintendent about the incorrect valuation method. The Tribunal considered the appellant's compliance and the circumstances surrounding the duty payment, including the assurance given by the Range Superintendent that no further proceedings would be initiated upon payment. Disclosure and Payment of Differential Duty: The appellant's disclosure of the valuation method in their return and the subsequent payment of the differential duty before the issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) were significant aspects of the case. The appellant argued that there was no suppression on their part, as they had paid the duty promptly upon realizing the error. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's actions and found that the Department should not have issued the SCN invoking the extended period and imposing an equal penalty, considering the circumstances and the appellant's compliance. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant based on the issues discussed and the legal precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
