2002 (7) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty based on depot sale price instead of factory gate sale price.
2. Challenge on the point of limitation for the demand of duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of duty based on depot sale price
The appellant appealed against the order confirming duty and imposing penalties for allegedly selling goods at prices higher than factory gate prices. The appellant argued that they had genuine factory gate sales, supported by approved price lists regularly filed with the Revenue. The appellant contended that under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the assessable value should be based on factory gate prices when ascertainable from sales to independent buyers. The appellant cited legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Indian Oxygen v. CCE - 1988, to support their argument. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of any additional consideration received by the appellant from independent wholesale buyers at the factory gate. The Tribunal held that the factory gate price should be considered the normal price for determining the assessable value. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case involving the same appellant, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's case and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 2: Challenge on the point of limitation
The appellant challenged the demand of duty on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the prices declared in approved price lists were genuine, and there was no evidence of misstatement, suppression, or fraud to evade duty payment. The appellant contended that the demand beyond six months was time-barred since the show cause notice was issued after the relevant period. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into the limitation issue as the appeal was allowed on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty and penalties, based on the assessment of depot sale prices instead of factory gate prices. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering normal prices under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and upheld the appellant's argument supported by legal precedents. The challenge on the point of limitation was not addressed as the appeal was allowed on the merits.