1976 (2) TMI 38 - HC - Central Excise

Assessment - Incomplete assessment - Criteria for completion - Provisional assessment - Valuation - Statute - Rule of Construction

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 10 vs. Rule 10A for recovery of short-levied duties.
2. Validity of assessments and whether they were provisional or final.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Excise Department.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 10 vs. Rule 10A for Recovery of Short-Levied Duties:

The primary contention revolved around whether the short-levied duties should be recovered under Rule 10 or Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Company argued that the case fell under Rule 10, which required the demand to be made within three months, thereby making the notices time-barred. Conversely, the Department contended that Rule 10A, which has no such limitation, was applicable.

- Rule 10: This rule applies when duties have been short-levied due to "inadvertence, error, collusion or mis-construction on the part of an officer, or through mis-statement as to the quantity, description or value of such goods on the part of the owner." It mandates that the deficiency must be paid on a written demand made within three months from the date on which the duty was paid or adjusted.

- Rule 10A: This rule serves as a residuary provision for the recovery of sums due to the government when no specific provision exists in the rules for the collection of any duty or deficiency in duty. It does not have a prescribed limitation period.

The court concluded that the case was one of incomplete assessment rather than a mis-statement of value, making Rule 10A applicable. This was supported by the bond executed by the Company and the subsequent actions, which indicated that the assessments were not final but provisional or incomplete.

2. Validity of Assessments and Whether They Were Provisional or Final:

The Company argued that the assessments were final as contemplated by Rule 52, and any reassessment should fall under Rule 10. The Department, however, contended that the assessments were provisional, pending final determination of the assessable value.

- The court examined the bond executed by the Company, the AR 1 forms submitted, and the notices of demand. The bond indicated that the final assessment of excise duty could not be made for want of full information as regards value. The AR 1 forms were labeled "provisional assessment" and included a declaration to pay differential duty if the prices were found to be incorrect.

- The court concluded that these documents and the subsequent actions by the Department indicated that the assessments were provisional or incomplete, not final. Therefore, the case did not fall under Rule 10 but under Rule 10A, as it was a matter of completing an incomplete assessment.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by the Excise Department:

The Company argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as the evidence and material considered by the Department were not disclosed, nor was any reasonable opportunity given to rebut the same.

- The Assistant Collector and the Collector relied on instances of sales by New Era Traders and Vitrum Glass Works, as well as inferences drawn from the K.P.T. invoices, without giving the Company an opportunity to explain or cross-examine the sources of this information.

- The court found that the reliance on external sales data and the inferences drawn from the K.P.T. invoices formed the basis of the orders, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Company was not given a fair opportunity to contest the evidence or the adverse inferences drawn.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's judgment that the impugned notices of demand and orders were issued and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it was noted that the Department could take fresh action, giving the Company an opportunity to contend that the amounts mentioned in the K.P.T. invoices were post-manufacturing expenses and not part of the manufacturing cost. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal.

← Previous Next →