2004 (12) TMI 94 - SC - Central Excise

Whether once Rule 173C(11) applies then the assessee is entitled to have its value fixed as per the invoices? - Held that - The Tribunal has ignored the proviso to Rule 173C(11). It could not be shown that the price at the factory gate could not be determined or that the price at the factory gate was varying. Thus the assessing authority was right in holding that the value would have to be determined as per that price. The Tribunal was clearly in error in ignoring the proviso. We are thus unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal. It is accordingly set aside. The Appeals stand allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the determination of assessable value for goods cleared by the Respondents.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the determination of assessable value for goods cleared by the Respondents under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Respondents, who manufactured Electric Welding Electrodes, claimed that they were entitled to value the goods based on challan and advice notes as per Rule 173C(11). However, the assessing authority contended that the assessable value should be the value at the factory gate. The Tribunal held in favor of the Respondents, stating that once Rule 173C(11) applies, the assessee is entitled to have its value fixed as per the invoices.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the proviso to Rule 173C(11). The Court highlighted that Rule 173C(11) only applies in cases where it is not possible to determine the value in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, which specifies the normal price for goods. The Court clarified that if a normal price exists at which goods are sold at the factory gate, then the value must be reassessed based on this normal price as determined under Section 4.

The Court further explained that Rule 173C(11) cannot override Section 4, as the normal price determined under Section 4 must be the value at which goods are ordinarily sold. The proviso in Rule 173C(11) allows for reassessment if the price on the challan or advice note does not represent the value as determined under Section 4. Since in this case, the price at the factory gate was ascertainable and fixed, the assessing authority was correct in determining the value based on that price. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the proviso and set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the Appeals filed against it.

In summary, the judgment clarifies the interplay between Rule 173C(11) and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in determining the assessable value of goods. It underscores the importance of adhering to the normal price provisions under Section 4 unless exceptional circumstances exist where the normal price cannot be ascertained, as provided for in Rule 173C(11) with the necessary reassessment safeguards outlined in the proviso.