1986 (9) TMI 258 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in declared price versus actual selling price
- Exclusion of elements in the assessable value
- Bar on limitation for demand of short levy
- Rejection of claim for exclusion of trade discount

Analysis:

The case involved a discrepancy in the declared price versus the actual selling price of detergent cakes by the appellant. The appellant filed a price list declaring the goods' price at Rs. 149.07 per 108 cakes, with a nil trade discount. However, it was found that the actual selling price was Rs. 187.17 per 108 cakes, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant argued that they followed the Voltas case judgment and excluded certain elements like post-manufacturing expenses and distribution costs from the assessable value, as shown in the invoices.

The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant cannot unilaterally decide what elements to exclude from the assessable value. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, post the Voltas case judgment, detailed provisions on the inclusion/exclusion of price elements in the assessable value. The appellant's failure to declare the actual selling price accurately was deemed misleading. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have declared all relevant elements in the price list, not just in the invoices.

Regarding the bar on limitation for the demand of short levy, the Tribunal held that the demand made in the revised notice was within the time limit, as it was a revision of the earlier notice and not a supersession. Despite the absence of allegations of fraud or collusion, the demand was deemed valid.

The claim for the exclusion of trade discount from the assessable value was rejected by the Tribunal. The appellant's argument that trade discount was not available at the time of removal and hence should be excluded was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should have paid duty based on the actual selling price at the time of removal, irrespective of subsequent discounts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had obtained relief through an order that should not have been allowed. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the demand for the payment of the differential duty based on the actual selling price of the goods.