2019 (9) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Finalization of provisional assessment - goods cleared on stock transfer basis to the depot - Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 - case of Revenue is that the detail work-sheet of the calculation of the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold has not been elaborated in the order of the adjudicating authority while finalization of the assessment - HELD THAT - The assessment was made provisional as the value of the goods cleared could not be determined at the time and place of removal, since the said goods were sold from the depots. Therefore, resorting to Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the value was determined on the basis of the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold i.e. the normal transaction value of the goods and adopted the same for finalization of the assessment. The grievance of the Revenue is that even though assessment was made final by the adjudicating authority on the basis of the report of the Range Superintendent dated 03.09.2007, who verified the data and the normal transaction value is determined in accordance with CBE C Circular No. 803/33/04-CX dated 27.12.2004, but the detail work-sheet in arriving at the said normal transaction value was not enclosed with the impugned order - there is no fine merit in the said contention of the Revenue, as in para 16 of the order of the adjudicating authority, relevant month-wise data for the assessment period has been mentioned, which was based on the report of the Range Superintendent. No contrary evidence has been placed by the Revenue to show that the data reflected in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority is incorrect. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. Th- I/RKS/09/2011 dated 07.09.2011
- Determination of normal transaction value for excisable goods
- Provisional assessment under Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000
- Absence of detailed work-sheet in finalization of assessment
- Revenue's appeal regarding calculation of greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold
- Correctness of normal transaction value calculation
- Compliance with CBE&C Circular No. 803/33/04-CX dated 27.12.2004

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. Th- I/RKS/09/2011 dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn, resorted to provisional assessment as the goods were sold through their depot, making it challenging to determine the value at the time and place of removal. The Assistant Commissioner finalized the assessment based on the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold, as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, resulting in a differential duty amount. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the adjudicating authority failed to provide a detailed work-sheet in finalizing the assessment, rendering the order legally flawed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and remanded the matter for correct determination of the normal transaction value.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had indeed resorted to provisional assessment due to the nature of selling goods through their depot. The normal transaction value was determined based on the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold, in compliance with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Revenue contended that the absence of a detailed work-sheet in the finalization of assessment invalidated the order, a claim supported by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, as the relevant month-wise data for the assessment period was mentioned in the adjudicating authority's order, supported by the report of the Range Superintendent. The Tribunal emphasized that without evidence contradicting the data presented, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in doubting the normal transaction value calculation, which followed the procedure outlined in the Board's Circular dated 27.12.2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, providing for consequential relief as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of following prescribed valuation rules and circulars while finalizing assessments to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal standards.