1995 (10) TMI 89 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Interpretation of Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the effective date of a revised price list lowering the value of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involves a manufacturer of various products, including paper, who filed a revised price list on 11-10-1982, showing reduced prices for paper and claiming the same deduction as earlier. The Assistant Collector approved the revised price list with effect from 31-3-1983, while the Collector (Appeals) held that the approval should be effective from the date of filing the revised price list, i.e., 11-10-1982. The Department appealed this decision.

2. The main issue is determining the effective date from which a revised price list, lowering the price of goods, can become effective - whether from the date of approval or the date of filing the revised price list.

3. The matter falls under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, specifically Rule 173C, which requires an assessee to file a price list of goods assessable ad valorem. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 173C mandates prior approval by the proper officer in cases where a fresh price list or an amendment lowers the existing value of goods.

4. Sub-rule (3) and (5) of Rule 173C outline the procedure for approving a revised price list. The proper officer may approve the revised price list after necessary modifications and return it to the assessee. The assessee cannot clear goods unless the price list is approved, except in cases where provisional assessment under Rule 9B is allowed.

5. The judgment emphasizes that prior approval of the proper officer is crucial when a revised price list lowers the value of goods. Goods cannot be cleared based on the lower price without such approval, except when the proper officer allows provisional assessment under Rule 9B.

6. The conclusion drawn is that a revised price list, lowering the value of goods, can typically take effect only from the date of approval by the proper officer, unless the assessee has been allowed the benefit of provisional assessment under Rule 9B.

7. Referring to a previous Supreme Court case, the judgment highlights instances where removal on payment of excise duty was allowed even without a provisional order or bond, provided a personal ledger account under Rule 173G(3) was maintained.

8. The decision sets aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) as both interpretations of the effective date of approval were deemed erroneous. It is stated that the approval should take effect from the date the assessee obtained the benefit under sub-rule 5 of Rule 173C, which needs verification by the Assistant Collector.

9. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and observations made in the judgment, emphasizing the need to verify if sub-rule 5 of Rule 173C was invoked by the assessee.

10. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the orders of the statutory and appellate authorities are set aside, and the matter is to be reconsidered by the Assistant Collector.

← Previous Next →