2003 (3) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation of aerated water for central excise duty during 1994-95

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the valuation of aerated water manufactured and sold by the respondent company during the period 1994-95. Initially, the goods were provisionally assessed, but a show cause notice was later issued alleging incorrect valuation. The Commissioner accepted the ex-factory price as the basis of assessment, emphasizing that the selling price should meet specific criteria outlined in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner noted that the burden is on the department to prove the absence of genuineness of the factory gate sale price before resorting to alternative valuation methods. The Commissioner cited legal precedents to support the acceptance of factory gate prices as the normal price for valuation purposes, thereby negating the need for detailed costing analysis.

The main grievance raised in the appeal was that the Commissioner allegedly did not consider all relevant facts before passing the order. The appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to adequately analyze the evidence and facts on record, particularly regarding the ex-factory sales and wholesale prices for different brands of aerated waters. It was argued that the Commissioner did not properly assess the break-up of sales or the basis for determining the "Normal Price" under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant also criticized the method of arriving at assessable values based on depot sale prices and arbitrary deductions for transport and rentals, which were claimed to lack proper documentary support.

The respondents argued that the valuation ordered by the Commissioner was in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, which mandates assessment based on the normal price at which goods are sold on an ex-factory basis. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and submissions from both parties, upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding no error in accepting the ex-factory prices as the assessable value. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that it lacked merit and seemed to have been filed as a routine measure to contest any adverse adjudication order without substantial grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's valuation decision based on the ex-factory prices of the aerated water, emphasizing compliance with Section 4 criteria and rejecting the appellant's contentions of inadequacy in the Commissioner's analysis. The appeal was dismissed, and the original order was upheld.