2016 (11) TMI 1345 - AT - Central Excise

Duty under protest - Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules - Sale of sample pack to distributor - Held that - it appears that an identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the assessee s own case M/s Bausch and Lomb Eyecare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Jaipur 2016 (6) TMI 510 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - wherein it was held that the Revenue s entire case for enhancement of the price is based upon the fact that the distributors were giving the said packs free of cost as a promotional scheme. Revenue has otherwise not doubted the fact that the consideration received by the assessee from the distributor is not the consideration or something more has flown back - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over valuation of lens care solution bottles for excise duty purposes.
- Applicability of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
- Whether the value of small bottles should be based on the price of larger commercial bottles.
- Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. Valuation Dispute: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing lens care solution, faced objections from the Department regarding the payment of excise duty on sample packs sold at Re. 1 per bottle. The Department argued that these were samples and not sold, leading to show cause notices. The Department valued the 60 ml bottles at half the price of the 120 ml retail bottles. However, the Tribunal referred to a similar case and held that the transaction value of the smaller packs represented the assessable value, as the price at which they were sold was the sole consideration, fulfilling the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Rule 8 of Valuation Rules: The appellant started paying excise duty on the sample bottles under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, i.e., cost of production plus 10% under protest. However, the Department contended that the bottles should be valued based on the price of comparable goods, leading to the issuance of show cause notices. The Tribunal emphasized that the consideration received by the appellant from the distributor was the relevant factor for valuation, not what the distributors did with the goods thereafter. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

3. Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a): The Tribunal reiterated the legal position that the value of the small bottles should be based on the transaction value, as the price at which they were sold represented the assessable value. The Tribunal highlighted that in the absence of any evidence or allegation that the consideration received by the appellant was not the sole consideration, the legal precedent established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was fully applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant based on the prevailing legal interpretation.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the valuation dispute by emphasizing the significance of transaction value and the consideration received by the appellant for the small bottles of lens care solution. The legal interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) played a crucial role in determining the assessable value for excise duty purposes, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and relief granted to the appellant.