2005 (4) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise Duty demand on goods supplied to Maruti Udyog Ltd.
2. Penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q.
3. Interest under Section 11AB.
4. Penalty under Rule 209A on the Director.
5. Applicability of community price concept.
6. Co-operation in investigation by the Director.
7. Liability of the Director in evasion of duty.
8. Abatement of appeal due to the death of the Director.
9. Valuation of goods sold to Maruti Udyog Ltd.
10. Consideration of escalation clause in purchase order.
11. Enhancement of assessable value under Section 4.
12. Allegations of suppression of facts.
13. Invocation of extended period under Section 11A(1).
14. Justification of penalty under Section 11AC.
15. Upholding of interest under Section 11AB.

Analysis:
1. The appellant company was engaged in manufacturing carpets and floor coverings, facing a duty demand of Rs. 13,73,048/- for goods supplied to Maruti Udyog Ltd. The duty demand, penalty, and interest were imposed under relevant provisions, which were confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand, penalty, and interest, citing suppression of facts and evasion of duty by the appellant.

2. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's plea regarding the treatment of the amount received on account of price escalation as community price, distinguishing it from a Supreme Court decision. The penalty on the Director was justified due to non-cooperation in the investigation, establishing his responsibility for duty evasion.

3. The death of the Director led to the abatement of one appeal. In the appeal filed by the assessee, it was argued that the absence of an escalation clause in the purchase order justified not enhancing the assessable value under Section 4. The Tribunal found no grounds to alter the valuation of goods already assessed and cleared.

4. The Tribunal ruled that the escalation of sale price post-sale contract without prior contemplation did not warrant an alteration in value or imposition of duty. The demand and penalty were not upheld, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

5. The Tribunal concluded that as the ingredients of Section 11A(1) were not upheld, penalties under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were not justified. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, disposing of the case accordingly.