2017 (3) TMI 1280 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sanitary wares - Whereas the appellant has adopted the value in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the CEA; Revenue is of the view that the goods are liable to be assessed on MRP basis, in terms of Section 4 A of the CEA - Held that - the opinion relied upon by Revenue along with query raised to the Metrology Department, has not been placed on record and not procured to the appellant; that the facts of packaging condition of ultimate clearance of the goods to the consumer are not available on record; that the other contra opinions placed on record have not been considered by the lower authorities - we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-consideration of all the above issues - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over assessable value of sanitary wares, reliance on legal metrology opinions, contradictory stands by Revenue, applicability of Supreme Court decisions, reference to Larger Bench decision.

1. Dispute over Assessable Value: The judgment revolves around a dispute concerning the assessable value of sanitary wares manufactured by the appellant. The appellant valued the goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, while the Revenue contended that the goods should be assessed based on MRP under Section 4 A of the Act. The provisional assessments were finalized by the Revenue, leading to a demand for duty against the appellant.

2. Reliance on Legal Metrology Opinions: The lower authorities relied on an opinion from the Director of Legal Metrology, stating that certain sanitaryware items fall under the Packaged Commodities Rules. However, the appellant argued that they were not provided with this specific opinion and presented other opinions from the same authority that were not considered. The absence of the query raised to the Legal Metrology Department and the non-consideration of contradictory opinions raised concerns about the fairness of the decision.

3. Contradictory Stands by Revenue: The appellant highlighted that their sister concern in Tamil Nadu was being assessed under Section 4 without objection from the Revenue, indicating a contradiction in treatment of the same assessee. This discrepancy raised the need for verification to ensure consistent treatment by the Revenue.

4. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions: The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding refrigerators falling under the Weights and Measures Act, but the Tribunal refrained from commenting on its applicability to the current case. The matter was further complicated by a subsequent reference of the issue to a Larger Bench by the Supreme Court, delaying a conclusive decision.

5. Reference to Larger Bench Decision: Given the unresolved legal issues, non-availability of crucial documents, and the pending decision by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for re-consideration by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the disputed issue, allowing the appellant to present additional grounds, pleas, or evidence in support of their case during reconsideration.