1998 (2) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against CCE(A) order, Claim of Rs. 2,700, Demand of Rs. 37,973, Valuation of aluminium extrusion.

1. Appeal against CCE(A) order:
The appellants filed an appeal against the order passed by the CCE(A), Bangalore, disputing the denial of their claim of Rs. 2,700. The appellants argued that although they did not produce challans under Rule 57F(2), they provided transporters and lorry challans to prove that the goods sent were received back. However, the tribunal found that the receipts under Rule 57F(2) were crucial to correlate the goods, and the other challans were insufficient for this purpose. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the decision that the appellants were not entitled to the claim.

2. Claim of Rs. 2,700:
The tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide the necessary receipts under Rule 57F(2) to substantiate their claim, which led to the rejection of their appeal. The appellants' argument that the transporters and lorry challans were sufficient evidence was deemed inadequate by the tribunal, emphasizing the importance of correlating the goods in question with the required documentation.

3. Demand of Rs. 37,973:
Regarding the demand of Rs. 37,973, the appellants contended that due to a factory strike on the verification day, they were unable to present the inputs to the officials, leading to a delay in inspection. However, the tribunal found the appellants' explanation unconvincing, stating that they should have informed the officers about the scattered inputs during the visit. The tribunal considered the delay in reporting the scattered goods as an afterthought and dismissed the appellants' plea.

4. Valuation of aluminium extrusion:
The appellants argued for a reduction in duty based on a price reduction agreed with customers via telephonic conversations. The tribunal, however, required evidence in the form of letters from customers to support this claim. As no such evidence was presented, the tribunal rejected the appellants' argument, emphasizing the necessity of substantiating claims with proper documentation. The appeal was consequently dismissed due to the lack of supporting evidence for the price reduction contention.