1992 (12) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged misdeclaration of assessable value in price lists filed by appellants.
2. Contravention of Central Excise Rules and imposition of duty and penalty.
3. Denial of charges by appellants and rejection of contentions by Collector.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgments on ex-factory price as basis for assessment.
5. Appeal against Collector's decision and arguments presented by both parties.
6. Examination of records and consideration of submissions made by both sides.
7. Application of legal precedents to determine assessable value in appellants' case.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involves a case where the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Aluminium extruded shapes and sections, were alleged to have misdeclared the assessable value of their products in filed price lists. The Department claimed that charges recovered from dealers were not included in the assessable value, leading to contravention of Central Excise Rules. The appellants denied the charges, citing Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments that ex-factory price should be the basis for assessment when available. The Collector rejected the appellants' contentions and imposed a penalty, prompting the appeal.

During the hearing, the appellants argued that the approved ex-factory price, declared in price lists and representing a significant portion of sales to independent buyers, should determine the assessable value. They emphasized that transportation costs should be excluded if assessment was based on depot prices. Legal precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and various Tribunals, were cited to support their case.

On the Revenue's behalf, it was argued that the Collector's findings were valid, as the appellants failed to substantiate claims regarding sales volumes at the factory gate and from depots. The Revenue contended that certain charges included in transport costs were not related to actual transportation expenses, supporting the rejection of the appeal.

The Tribunal, after examining the case records and submissions, acknowledged that the appellants' price lists were approved, and a significant portion of sales were made at ex-factory prices to unconnected buyers. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Oxygen Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that the assessable value should be based on the ex-factory price when ascertainable, excluding post-clearance charges. Following this reasoning, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.