1997 (6) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to produce relevant records for deciding the appeal.
2. Applicability of duty on commission paid to another company.
3. Interpretation of assessable value in relation to commission payments.
4. Justification of duty demand under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
5. Relationship between the appellant and the company receiving commission.

Analysis:
1. The appellant failed to produce crucial records like show cause notices, contracts, and invoices necessary for deciding the appeal. This absence hindered the Tribunal from making an informed decision, as only the appellate order and memorandum of appeal were available for review.

2. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing tools, faced duty demands related to commission payments made to M/s. Alfred Herbert India Ltd. for sales conducted through them. The issue revolved around whether this commission was deductible from the assessable value for duty calculation purposes.

3. The Tribunal noted that the commission paid to M/s. Alfred Herbert India Ltd. was based on catalogue prices of the appellant's goods. It was established that the duty was paid on prices minus the commission, leading to an incorrect assessment. The Tribunal concluded that commission could not be deducted to determine the assessable value, as it was not discount but a separate payment.

4. The duty demand under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was deemed justified by the Tribunal due to the nature of the commission payments and the incorrect assessment methodology employed by the appellant to evade duty.

5. The relationship between the appellant and M/s. Alfred Herbert India Ltd. was deemed irrelevant to the case's core issue of whether the commission paid was deductible. The Tribunal affirmed that the lack of a relationship did not impact the decision that the commission was not deductible from the assessable value.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions and dismissed the appeal, upholding the duty demands related to commission payments and emphasizing the correct calculation of assessable value for duty assessment purposes.