2015 (5) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Section 4 - whether the amount of ₹ 49.36 allowed to be retained by the respondents from the price or not - Held that - adjudicating authority has dealt with valuation issue in detail and dropped the proceedings by relying on this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahadev Industries Vs CCE Belgaum 1999 (6) TMI 202 - CEGAT, MADRAS and also by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria (1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The lower appellate authority also in the impugned order upheld the above order by relying this Bench decision on the identical issue in the case of CCE Coimbatore Vs Kottukulam Engineers. We find that in the present case, the respondent has rightly discharged the excise duty as per contract price of ₹ 712.86 per sleeper which is a sale price. As per Section 4, the price at which the goods are cleared to the railways is the transaction value. In this case, the respondents have rightly discharged excise duty. Therefore, the appellate authority, by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Bench order (supra), has rightly upheld the adjudication order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation under Section 4 of Central Excise Act for retaining an amount in the sale price.

In this case, the Revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of Concrete Sleepers supplied to Indian Railways. The dispute arose from the demand of differential service tax by the Revenue based on modvat credit availed by the respondents. The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, stating that excise duty had been correctly paid as per the sale price without considering modvat benefit. The Revenue contended that the amount retained by the respondents should have been included in the taxable value as additional consideration. The key issue was whether the amount retained by the respondents should be part of the sale price for excise duty valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.

The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on a Supreme Court judgment not applicable to the present case. They contended that the amount retained by the respondents should have been considered as additional consideration, even if not includible in the assessable value of the sleeper. The respondents did not appear during the proceedings. The Tribunal analyzed the case records and the orders, focusing on the valuation issue under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority correctly dealt with the valuation issue and relied on previous decisions to support their conclusion. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on the fact that the excise duty was discharged as per the contract price, which was the sale price, in accordance with Section 4. The Tribunal concluded that the adjudication order was valid, and there was no reason to interfere with it. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision centered on the correct valuation of Concrete Sleepers under the Central Excise Act, specifically focusing on whether the amount retained by the respondents should be included in the sale price for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal affirmed the adjudication order, emphasizing that the excise duty was correctly paid based on the contract price, and there was no justification to overturn the decision.