2017 (11) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - cylinder making charges/engraving charges - Held that - the relevant finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the cost of the cylinders used for printing is to be included in the value of the P.E. Films - the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Flex Industries Ltd., 1997 (1) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI wherein it is held that cost of cylinders is to be added to the value of printed pouches - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand on cylinder making charges
- Reduction of penalty and interest
- Appellant's failure to appear at the hearing

Duty Demand on Cylinder Making Charges:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming a duty demand on cylinder making charges collected by a manufacturer of Polyethylene films for printing. The department initiated proceedings as the charges were not included in the valuation of the films. The Joint Commissioner confirmed a duty demand along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand but reduced the penalties and interest. The appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal. The Tribunal examined the issue and found no infirmity in the impugned order. Referring to previous judicial decisions, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the cost of cylinders used for printing should be added to the value of the films. Consequently, the duty demand of Rupees 2,35,400 was deemed sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Reduction of Penalty and Interest:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty and interest imposed on the appellant after confirming the duty demand. The appellant contested this reduction in penalties and interest in the present appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, found no infirmity in the impugned order. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reduce the penalties and interest, as the duty demand was deemed sustainable based on the inclusion of cylinder charges in the valuation of the Polyethylene films.

Appellant's Failure to Appear at the Hearing:
Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant during the proceedings. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merit based on the grounds of appeal and other material on record. The case pertained to 2004, and the Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to address the appeal in the absence of the appellant. The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the learned AR defending the impugned order and found no reason to overturn the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the duty demand, penalties, and interest. The appeal was dismissed based on the reasoned findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the judicial pronouncements cited in support of the decision.