1987 (6) TMI 265 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Revision No. 7 of 1980 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta.
- Alleged clearance of plywood without submitting price list as required by Rule 173-C of Central Excise Rules.
- Demand for differential duty based on tariff value for commercial plywood.
- Dispute regarding the authenticity of quotations obtained for assessing duty.
- Defense of the appellant regarding the sale of defective/rejected goods.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi originated from a Revision Petition before the Government of India, challenging Order-in-Revision No. 7 of 1980 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta. The appellant company, involved in manufacturing commercial plywood, faced allegations of clearing quantities of plywood without submitting a price list as required by Rule 173-C of Central Excise Rules. The authorities demanded a differential duty based on tariff value for commercial plywood, leading to a legal dispute.

The appellant argued that rejected/defective goods were not sold as standard goods and were not beneficial to the manufacturer to declare them as such. The company claimed to have obtained quotations from different customers for assessing duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act. However, the authenticity of these quotations was contested by the authorities. The Collector of Central Excise rejected the defense of the appellant, stating that the quotations were obtained to evade duty payment rather than reflecting genuine market prices.

Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings, emphasizing the lack of genuineness in the quotations provided by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the quotations were obtained without proper inspection of the goods in question, indicating a possible attempt to manipulate duty assessment. The defense presented by the appellant was deemed insufficient to justify the assessment based on quotations rather than tariff values.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the arguments put forth by the appellant lacked merit. The decision reaffirmed the Collector's stance on the authenticity of quotations and upheld the demand for differential duty based on tariff value for the commercial plywood cleared by the appellant.