2014 (2) TMI 921 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Whether one normal price will have to be worked out for all depots or different normal prices for different depots may be accepted for assessment purposes - Held that - From the instructions issued by the Board in 1996 and 2000, it is absolutely clear that when the goods are sold not at the factory but form a depot, the value to be taken is the value prevalent at the depot at the time of removal and if the value is not available at the time of removal, at the nearest point of time. The Board Circular also clarifies that when the goods are sold from different depots what is to be taken is only the value at a particular depot from where the goods are ultimately going to be sold and not the values prevalent at other depots. It is abundantly clear that except for the change that normal value is replaced by transaction value there is no material difference in the method of valuation under the old section 4 and new section4 and also the valuation Rules made thereunder. The new section 4 introduced form 01/07/2000 envisages that the value has to be determined for each removal of excisable goods. In other words, the new Section 4 envisages the possibility of the goods being sold at different values to different places and to different customers and each of such values were acceptable for the purpose of assessment of duty, so long as the other conditions prescribed therein are satisfied. On a given day, then there would be only one value irrespective of the fact that the goods are removed from different refineries and sold from different different depots. Such an interpretation of law, in our view defeats the purpose and object of new Section 4 which to levy excise duty on transaction value for each removal. Further Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 also envisages that where the goods are sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to depot/other premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the place of removal and where the assessee and buyer of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for sale, then the value shall be the normal transaction value such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time, and where such goods are not sold at or about some time at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods assessment. The expressions of such goods and such other place are significant such goods refers to goods of the same kind and quality and such other place means the place from which the goods would be ultimately sold on removal from the factory. if the goods are to be sold after removal from the factory at Mumbai through the depot at Ahmedabad, it is the price prevailing at Ahmedabad at that particular time which would be relevant for the purpose of determination of assessable value for the goods cleared at Mumbai factory at a given date. If we take the value of the aggregate quantity of goods from all the depots throughout the country, the expression such other place loses its meaning and significance. It is a settled position of law that while interpreting no word should be rendered redundant or surplus. If the view taken by the adjudicating authority is accepted, it would result in an absurd situation as it would render the word such goods and such other places redundant - Following decision of Brakes India Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai 2005 (1) TMI 211 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of goods under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
2. Interpretation of "normal transaction value" and "greatest aggregate quantity" under Rule 2(b).
3. Application of Board's Circulars on valuation.
4. Time-barred nature of the demand.
5. Imposition of penalty and interest.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Goods under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000:
The appellant, a manufacturer of petroleum products, contested the valuation method adopted by the department for the period from July 2005 to February 2008. The department argued that the appellant should have considered the transaction value at which the "greatest aggregate quantity" of identical goods were sold across all depots. The appellant, however, computed the duty based on the "normal transaction value" of the "greatest aggregate quantity" of goods sold from individual depots.

2. Interpretation of "Normal Transaction Value" and "Greatest Aggregate Quantity" under Rule 2(b):
The appellant contended that the "normal transaction value" should be determined depot-wise and not by aggregating the quantities sold across all depots. They relied on Rule 7 and Rule 2(b) of the Valuation Rules, which define "normal transaction value" as the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods is sold. The appellant argued that this interpretation was consistent with the Board's Circulars and previous judicial decisions.

3. Application of Board's Circulars on Valuation:
The appellant cited several Board's Circulars, including Circular No. 251/85/96 and Circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU, which clarified that the assessable value should be based on the price prevailing at the depot from where the goods are ultimately sold. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's reliance on these Circulars, stating that the value should be determined based on the price at the specific depot at the time of removal, not by aggregating values from all depots.

4. Time-barred Nature of the Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the department was aware of the valuation practice followed by the appellant. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue as it decided the case on merits.

5. Imposition of Penalty and Interest:
The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 10,79,09,045/- along with interest and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty. The Tribunal, however, set aside the impugned order, finding that the appellant's method of valuation was correct and consistent with the Board's Circulars and judicial precedents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and upheld the appellant's method of valuation based on the "normal transaction value" at individual depots. The Tribunal emphasized that the value should be determined based on the price at the specific depot at the time of removal, in line with the Board's Circulars and previous judicial decisions. The Tribunal did not address the time-barred nature of the demand or the imposition of penalty and interest, as the appeal was allowed on merits.

← Previous Next →