2025 (3) TMI 5 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - whether the valuation of goods sold by the appellant from their depot during the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2012 is covered under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000? - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that 90% of the sales are carried at the factory gate to unrelated customers and as per the Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable goods) Rules 2000 it is very clearly stated that where excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal Rule 7 can be invoked. Considering the decisions relied by the learned Consultant for the appellant the demand by invoking the Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable goods) Rules 2000 is unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The issue in the present appeals before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the valuation of goods sold by the appellant from their depot during the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2012 is covered under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The appellant, a manufacturer of plastic water storage tanks, sold 90% of their production at the factory gate to independent buyers and paid duty on such transactions. The remaining 10% of the goods were transferred to their depot in Tamil Nadu, and duty was paid based on the price charged to independent buyers at the factory gate. However, the Audit objected to this valuation method, claiming that Rule 7 should have been applied. Show Cause Notices were issued for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008 and for the subsequent period until 31.12.2012.The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, and appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original orders but restricted the demands for the first period and set aside the penalty under Section 11AC. Further Show Cause Notices were issued for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013, and the demand was confirmed. The Commissioner (Appeals) again upheld the order, leading to the filing of appeals before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellant's Consultant argued that Rule 7 should not apply as it is meant for cases where the entire production is transferred to a depot for further sale, whereas in this case, only 10% of the goods were transferred. The Consultant cited precedents to support this argument, including the decision in ISPAT INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. RAIGAD and M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Bolpur.The Authorized Representative for the Respondent reiterated the submissions made in the impugned order, claiming that the demand for the normal period was rightly confirmed. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, found that since 90% of the sales were conducted at the factory gate to unrelated customers, Rule 7 could not be invoked. Therefore, the demand based on Rule 7 was deemed unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeals and providing relief based on the interpretation of Rule 7 and the specific circumstances of the case. The decision was pronounced in open court on 26.02.2025.