2000 (3) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods for central excise duty, Time-barred demand

Valuation of goods for central excise duty:
The dispute in this case revolves around the valuation of sheet glass manufactured by the appellants. The appellants were selling a portion of their goods ex-factory to dealers and a major consumer, M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works, while the rest was being sold from depots. The Assistant Collector initially held that assessment to central excise duty should be based on ex-factory prices, disregarding depot prices. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. The Commissioner, however, overturned this decision, stating that depot prices should constitute the assessable value after certain deductions. The Commissioner based this conclusion on the appellants' balance sheet, showing profits from depot sales due to additions for breakage, etc. The appellants argued that central excise duty should be levied based on ex-factory prices when available, and that the demand was time-barred as the Department was aware of the pricing structure.

Time-barred demand:
The appellants contended that the demand in the present case was time-barred, as they had been filing price lists from time to time, with some lists indicating ex-depot prices as the basis for assessment. However, the Departmental authorities insisted on ex-factory prices for valuation. The appellants argued that the Department had approved the price lists with full knowledge of the sales pattern, negating any suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that the demand for duty for the extended period was beyond the provisions of Section 11A, as the appellants had not suppressed any facts. The Tribunal set aside the order based on the demand being time-barred and on the merits, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment of central excise duty should be based on ex-factory prices when available, as approved by the authorities, and that the demand for duty was time-barred in this case. The order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to the appellants. Additionally, the Tribunal quashed the order remitting the matter for a fresh decision and confirmed the original price lists as approved.