2018 (2) TMI 1610 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - paper and paper board in sheet form - it was revealed that the said goods were sold at a higher price in wholesale trade as compared to the value on which Central Excise duty was paid by the appellant - Held that - identical issue decided in appellant own case Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2018 (1) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that Since, the price of paper reels at the depot at the time of removal was available and the duty had been paid only on that price, there is no short payment of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Differential duty demand on goods sold at a higher price compared to the value on which Central Excise duty was paid.
- Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing and clearance of paper and paper board, paying duty to cutting centers for conversion into sheet form, and selling goods at a higher price than the duty-paid value, leading to a demand for differential duty by the Revenue.

2. The appellant's counsel cited a previous judgment on an identical issue, requesting its application to the present case, emphasizing consistency in decisions.

3. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order, supporting the differential duty demand.

4. The Tribunal referred to a prior order on the same issue in the appellant's case, citing a Supreme Court judgment on the valuation of goods for duty calculation, emphasizing the value at the time of removal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the precedent set in the earlier order.

5. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction in facts between the present case and a judgment relied upon by the Revenue, emphasizing the job-worker's role in cutting and packing paper, differentiating it from the manufacturer's activities in the cited case.

6. Based on the established precedent in the appellant's previous case and the Supreme Court's principles on valuation for duty calculation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.

The judgment, delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, relied on established legal principles and past precedents to resolve the issues of differential duty demand and the applicability of previous judgments. The decision emphasized consistency in interpreting valuation principles for duty calculation, distinguishing the facts of the present case from those of cited judgments. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, following the precedent set in the appellant's earlier case and the Supreme Court's guidance on valuation principles, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.