Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1998 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1998 (3) TMI 431 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Interpretation of assessable value for excise duty calculation.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of assessable value for excise duty calculation:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessable value of fans named Ravi Fans manufactured in a factory. The appellant, owner of the factory, was selling the goods to various entities, primarily to M/s. P.D. Vyas & Co. (PDV) and later to M/s. Shree Bajrang Enterprises who sold it to Ravi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (RMPL) which further sold it to PDV. The central issue was whether PDV was a commission agent or a distributor, as this distinction impacted the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Commissioner held that Shree Bajrang Enterprises was a dummy, and PDV, RMPL, and the manufacturer were related persons. Consequently, the assessable value was determined based on the prices charged by PDV to wholesalers, leading to a demand confirmation and imposition of penalties on the appellants.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process:
The appellants raised concerns about the violation of principles of natural justice during the adjudication process. They highlighted delays in furnishing copies of documents relied upon in the show cause notice, which hindered their ability to respond effectively. The investigation was conducted by multiple Commissionerates, and documents crucial for the defense were taken away by officers from another Commissionerate. This resulted in the appellants not filing a reply to the show cause notice or being adequately prepared for the personal hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged these procedural irregularities and emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to respond. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority, directing the appellants to file replies within two months for a fresh assessment.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the core issue of determining the assessable value for excise duty calculation while also highlighting the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fair opportunity for the appellants to respond underscores the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates