9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (12) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Valuation of goods for excise duty purposes based on captive consumption. 2. Applicability of Valuation Rules and Section 4(1) of the Act. 3. Acceptance of documentary evidence in determining assessable value. 4. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding the quality of goods. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal involved a dispute over the valuation of fire bricks and mortar for excise duty purposes when captively consumed by the manufacturer. The department alleged undervaluation by the manufacturer, leading to a demand for differential duty. Issue 2: The manufacturer contended that the valuation should consider the difference in quality between goods meant for captive consumption and those sold to other buyers. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the manufacturer's argument based on documentary evidence, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate comparing prices, indicating inferior quality for captive consumption. Issue 3: The department challenged the Collector's decision, arguing that the Chartered Accountant's certificate did not adequately consider all relevant factors for valuation under Section 4(1). They cited previous judgments to support their position that the certificate was insufficient in determining the assessable value. Issue 4: The Tribunal found that the burden of proof regarding the quality of goods lay with the manufacturer, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate alone was not deemed satisfactory. Technical experts were considered necessary to certify the quality of the goods, and the absence of detailed evidence from the manufacturer led to the rejection of their contentions. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order, reinstating the Assistant Collector's decision, as the Chartered Accountant's certificate was deemed insufficient to establish the assessable value. The appeal was allowed in favor of the department, emphasizing the importance of proper valuation methods and the burden of proof on the assessee in such cases.
|
