2016 (5) TMI 938 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Sale through dealers - short payment of central excise duty by adopting much lower price than the stipulated by the legal provisions for sale of goods to two of their dealers - Revenue contended that two dealers, who supplied items to UPRNN have realized much more amount than what they paid to the main respondent (the manufacturer). Also there are certain instances of receipt of payment directly by main respondent from UPRNN and such receipt being much higher than the price at which the goods were subjected to tax - Held that - in the absence of any extra commercial relationship between the dealers and the main respondent, there can be no reason to allege undervaluation on this ground alone. Also it has been stated that the direct payments were as per the advice of the two dealers and by itself will not establish under-valuation of the goods. Therefore, we find no verification on method of transactions have been made at UPRNN side to link -up the possible dealings of the main respondent directly with UPRNN and to establish the role of SJT and SJE being mere dummies in these transactions and there is nothing on record warranting interference with the said findings. - Decided against the revenue

Issues: Allegation of short payment of central excise duty based on undervaluation by the main respondent while selling goods to authorized dealers.

Analysis:
1. The case involved four appeals by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a demand of differential duty, penalties, and further penalties on the main respondent and related parties for short payment of central excise duty.

2. The Revenue alleged that the main respondent undervalued goods sold to two dealers, who then sold the goods to another entity at a much higher price, resulting in a significant price difference that was not satisfactorily explained.

3. The Revenue argued that the financial transactions between the main respondent, the two dealers, and the end buyer indicated a potential undervaluation scheme, especially noting instances where the end buyer paid the main respondent directly at a higher price than the taxed value.

4. The main respondent, on the other hand, contended that the two dealers were not related to them, with the majority of sales conducted through various other authorized dealers. They emphasized that there was no evidence of any flow back from the two dealers to the main respondent.

5. The Tribunal examined the appeal records and focused on determining whether the main respondent had indeed short paid central excise duty due to undervaluation as alleged by the Revenue.

6. The Tribunal found that without evidence of an extra commercial relationship between the dealers and the main respondent, there was no basis to accuse undervaluation solely on the price difference between sales to dealers and subsequent sales to the end buyer.

7. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that direct payments received by the main respondent from the end buyer, UPRNN, at a higher price did not automatically indicate undervaluation, especially when these payments were made based on the advice of the dealers.

8. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of verification on the transaction methods at the end buyer's side to establish a direct link between the main respondent and the end buyer, as well as to prove the dealers were mere dummies in the transactions.

9. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the impugned order, which thoroughly examined all allegations made by the Revenue and concluded that there was no evidence warranting interference with the findings. As a result, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

← Previous Next →