2024 (11) TMI 718 - AT - Central Excise

Failure to follow Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - discrepancy in calculation of duty by Revenue - HELD THAT - In the instant case, it is noticed that the issue regarding documents and the manner of calculation has been specifically raised before the first appellate authority. Even in terms of the Tribunal order, the issue could have been raised before Commissioner (Appeals). In view of above, it is found that facts are not identical to the earlier proceedings, in so far as in the instant case, the appellant agitated issues regarding evidence in the shape of invoices before Commissioner (Appeals) which was not done in the earlier proceedings. The only dispute before Commissioner (Appeals) in the instant case was that while applicability of Rule 7 had not been challenged the manner of calculation was challenged. There are no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication - The appeal filed by Revenue is therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Rule 7
2. Discrepancy in calculation of duty by Revenue
3. Remand of the matter by Commissioner (Appeals)
4. Consistency in decisions across multiple proceedings
5. Challenge to remand order by M/s Bloom & Dekor Limited

Interpretation of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Rule 7:
The case involved the clearance of goods by the appellants to consignment agents based on invoices. The dispute arose regarding the valuation of goods as per Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellant claimed compliance with the rules, while the Revenue contended otherwise. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-calculation of the demand, citing discrepancies in the method of calculation by the Revenue.

Discrepancy in calculation of duty by Revenue:
The Revenue had issued multiple show cause notices over the years, leading to a series of orders confirming duty demands. The Commissioner (Appeals) found fault with the method of calculation adopted by the Revenue, stating it was not in line with Rule 7 of Valuation Rules, 2000 and a specific circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed a re-calculation of the demand by the original adjudicating authority, emphasizing adherence to the guidelines and illustrations provided in the circular.

Remand of the matter by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority due to the discrepancies in the calculation of duty by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the method of calculation was not in accordance with the relevant rules and circular, necessitating a fresh assessment by the adjudicating authority. This decision was challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal.

Consistency in decisions across multiple proceedings:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have maintained consistency with earlier decisions where demands were confirmed due to the appellant's failure to provide relevant invoices. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) deviated from the previous pattern and remanded the matter for re-calculation. The Tribunal upheld the remand order, noting that the issues raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case were distinct from those in earlier proceedings, justifying the remand for fresh adjudication.

Challenge to remand order by M/s Bloom & Dekor Limited:
M/s Bloom & Dekor Limited challenged the remand order on the grounds that it expanded the scope of the show cause notice and necessitated further inquiry, which was deemed impermissible under the law. However, the objections raised by M/s Bloom & Dekor were found to be contradictory to their earlier submissions before the Commissioner (Appeals) and were subsequently rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-calculation of the duty demand. The decision emphasized the need for adherence to valuation rules and circulars in determining duty liabilities, while also highlighting the importance of consistency in decision-making across multiple proceedings.