2017 (12) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - goods sold through depot - The appellants had wide variety of final products and were facing difficulty in paying Central Excise duty at the time of clearance from the factory for sale through depot as they could not ascertain the sale price of identical goods at or about the time cleared on sale from depot - Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules - the Original Authority did not give any acceptable reason for not accepting the verification report and the details available in ER-1 returns supported by certificate of Chartered Accountant submitted by the appellant - there is no reason to selectively reject the verification report. Since, the claim of the appellant is that they have deposited higher duty than what is demanded, we are not going into the other aspects regarding the applicability of specific rule for valuation etc. Here, we have to note that the appellants did follow a procedure for discharging duty by tracking each consignment and indicating the differential payment in their statutory returns - the question of issue demand for extended period requires/examination by the Original Authority who, as already noted has been directed to examine the quantification with reference to claim of the appellant of duty demand already made. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Valuation of goods sold through depot, differential Central Excise duty calculation, applicability of Rule 7 and Rule 11, demand invoking extended period, imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
1. Valuation of goods sold through depot:
The appellants in this case were manufacturing various products liable to Central Excise duty and faced challenges in determining the sale price of goods sold through depots. They adopted a method of tracking each consignment from the factory to the final sale through the depot. The Revenue contended that the price list announced by the appellants for depot sales should be the basis for valuation. The Original Authority upheld this view, leading to a demand for differential Central Excise duty and penalties.

2. Differential Central Excise duty calculation:
The appellants argued that they had already paid a higher amount of Central Excise duty than what was being demanded. They tracked all consignments and paid differential duty when the final sale value exceeded the initial clearance value. The verification report from the Jurisdictional officer supported the appellants' claims for some years but not for others, without providing a sustainable reason for the differentiation. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Original Authority's acceptance of data and directed a re-quantification of duty.

3. Applicability of Rule 7 and Rule 11:
The Revenue relied on Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules to determine the differential duty, considering the price list provided by the appellants as indicative of the correct transaction value. The Tribunal observed that the procedure followed by the appellants for duty discharge required re-examination by the Original Authority, emphasizing the need for a detailed quantification of duty in line with the observations made.

4. Demand invoking extended period and penalties:
The appellants contested the demand invoking an extended period, arguing that a part of the demand was beyond the permissible 5-year limit. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to re-examine the quantification of duty, providing the appellants with adequate opportunity. It was noted that the case did not warrant the imposition of penalties, and the matter was remanded back for further assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-quantification of duty and providing the appellants with a fair opportunity to present their case.