2010 (3) TMI 604 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - A show-cause notice was issued by the department proposing to finalize provisional assessment on the basis of the assessable value of CTV sets mentioned in the relevant invoices under Section 4. This show-cause notice proceeded in the premise that the higher amount mentioned under Section 4 in the invoice might have been recovered by the assessee s dealer (depot) from the ultimate consumers as is evidence from the fact that the assessee was alleged to have failed to declare the depot sale price inclusive of all expenses. In adjudication of this show-cause notice, the original authority dropped the proposal after holding that no additional consideration was given by the assessee to their depot and that the depot at Bangalore sold CTV sets to customers at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-. The order of adjudication was reviewed by the Commissioner and accordingly an appeal was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed that appeal and ordered for reassessment. The present appeal of the assessee is against the appellate Commissioner s order. Held that MRP was marked on each cartoon in compliance with Standard of Weight & Measure Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder. It was equally good enough for assessment u/s 4A of the Act, especially as all essential particulars were furnished in relevant invoices. There was no scope for department to enquire whether higher assessable value may have been recovered by assessee at depot from their dealers. It was more so as assessee had stated MRP in advance in their declaration, even though it was not required at that time.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of excisable goods under Section 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act; Declaration of assessable value and MRP in invoices; Provisional assessment and finalization; Reassessment based on assessable value discrepancies.

Analysis:

1. Valuation under Section 4 and Section 4A:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, transitioned from paying duty under Section 4 to MRP-based assessment under Section 4A for Colour Television Sets (CTV Sets). The department raised concerns regarding the assessable value and MRP declared in the invoices post-transition.

2. Declaration in Invoices:
Invoices issued by the appellant indicated both the assessable value under Section 4 and the MRP under Section 4A for CTV Sets. The appellant claimed abatement under Section 4A and paid duty based on the net assessable value. The dispute arose from discrepancies in the assessable value declared in the invoices.

3. Provisional Assessment and Reassessment:
The appellant resorted to provisional assessment during the dispute period, leading to a show-cause notice proposing finalization based on assessable value under Section 4. The original authority dropped the proposal, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered reassessment, prompting the appellant's appeal against this decision.

4. Appellant's Submission:
The authorized representative explained that confusion post-transition led to mentioning both Section 4 and Section 4A particulars in the invoices. The appellant voluntarily declared MRP and relevant details to the department, maintaining compliance despite no statutory requirement to do so.

5. Revenue's Position and Tribunal's Decision:
The Revenue sought reassessment based on discrepancies in assessable value, which the Tribunal found unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the appellant correctly declared MRP on cartons as required, paid duty on the net assessable value, and fulfilled all Section 4A requirements. The Tribunal upheld the order of adjudication, emphasizing that the department had no grounds to question the MRP declaration or the MRP-based assessment.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the reassessment order, affirming the correctness of the appellant's compliance with MRP-based assessment under Section 4A. The decision provided consequential relief to the appellant, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and fulfilling obligations under the Central Excise Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the valuation, declaration, and assessment processes under Sections 4 and 4A of the Central Excise Act, culminating in the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant based on compliance and procedural correctness.