1993 (8) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation on the basis of invoice price in cases of frequent fluctations of market price of goods

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of relaxation under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules.
2. Appealability of Collector's decision to the Tribunal.
3. Continuation of facility for invoice value assessment.
4. Discretion of the Collector under Rule 173C(11) to withdraw the facility.
5. Revenue implication and procedural matters in directing to file price lists.
6. Granting of interim relief and historical context of the facility.
7. Discretion of the Collector and the Tribunal's decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns a Stay petition and an Appeal arising from the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, to withdraw the relaxation granted under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector directed the appellants to file price lists for clearing their excisable goods, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the Collector's decision is appealable to the Tribunal under Section 35B(1)(a) as an adjudicating authority. The appellant contended that the decision under Rule 173C(11) constitutes a decision under the Act, justifying the appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant highlighted their long-standing benefit of invoice value assessment under Notification 120/75 and Rule 173C(11) since 1975 for their Refractory Bricks. They emphasized the smooth operation of the facility and the impracticality of filing price lists due to the extensive variety of their products and operational scale.

4. The Bench noted the Collector's view that the goods did not warrant relaxation under Rule 173C(11) due to insufficient justification for market price fluctuations. The appellant argued for the Appeal's allowance to avoid the burden of extensive paperwork and delays associated with filing price lists.

5. The Departmental Representative justified the Collector's decision, citing the discretionary power under Rule 173C(11) to withdraw the facility if deemed inapplicable. Revenue implications were highlighted, emphasizing the need for accurate duty assessment as per Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

6. The appellant sought interim relief and referenced historical correspondence with the Central Board of Excise and Customs regarding invoice value assessment for Refractory Manufacturers. They urged the restoration of the relaxation under Rule 173C(11).

7. The Tribunal, after considering submissions, upheld the Collector's decision, emphasizing his discretionary power and the procedural nature of the matter. The Tribunal declined to interfere, stating that the appellant could address their concerns with the Collector and seek appropriate orders. The Appeal was dismissed based on the Collector's discretion under Rule 173C(11) and the absence of legal disability or duty demand issues.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a detailed breakdown of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissing the Appeal.