2004 (9) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation of trade samples of textile fabrics for free distribution.

In this case, the primary issue revolves around the valuation of trade samples of textile fabrics cleared by the appellant for free distribution to traders. The duties were discharged based on a pro-rata value compared to 'fents' and 'rags' of similar fabric types. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demands, noting that while the samples were not in full width and were of short length, they were obtained from good quality fabrics, making their marketability unquestionable. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the appeals.

The Tribunal, in a previous order in the appellant's case, established that rags and fents should not be equated value-wise or quality-wise with prime quality textile. The Tribunal found that the sample pieces, being more akin to rags and fents, should not be valued on a pro-rata basis with good quality fabric. It was concluded that the valuation should be based on comparable goods valuation under Rule 4, rather than captive consumption rules. The Tribunal also hinted at the classification of sample cut pieces under a different tariff heading, although not directly relevant to the current appeal.

Another judgment by a different Bench of the Tribunal in the same appellant's case emphasized that the samples, made from fine/standard quality cloth, should have a higher value than fents and rags. However, due to their non-standard length and limited utility, the value of samples should fall between standard fabrics and fents/rags. The lower authorities were directed to reevaluate the value of the samples after allowing appropriate deductions from standard fabric values.

The Tribunal further analyzed the nature of 'fents' and 'rags' in the textile trade, highlighting that they are remnants of first-quality textiles rather than inferior pieces. Given the specialized connotation and value of 'fents' and 'rags', the Tribunal found the samples more akin to these remnants than bolts of good quality textiles. The Tribunal upheld its previous decision and disagreed with the earlier judgment by a different Bench, emphasizing the origin and nature of 'fents' and 'rags'.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the valuation by the appellants was appropriate, finding no fault with it. As a result, the duty demands could not be confirmed, leading to the setting aside of the lower authorities' orders and allowing the appeals.