2018 (3) TMI 14 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - appellants argued that they are actually selling the goods at the factory gate and not clearing the same to their depots - Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Since the sole defence of the appellant that the goods were not sold at the factory gate is unsubstantiated and was never raised before the original adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority, the same cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage especially when it is seen from the replies made by the appellant before the lower authorities that they had admitted the goods were sold from the premises of consignment agent - there is no infirmity in the manner in which the value has been arrived at by the lower authorities. Extended period of limitation - Held that - The appellants are required to assess the value in terms of Central Excise law on the basis of self assessment basis. In case the sales are made through consignment agent, it would not be in the knowledge of the Revenue. It is the duty of the appellant to clearly disclose that no sale is made from the factory but all the sales are made from the premises of the consignment agent - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and penalties by M/s Bloom Dekor Ltd. The appellant argued that they were selling goods at the factory gate to dealers, not clearing them to depots. They contended that the value of goods should be assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The appellant claimed that the goods were sold on a principal-to-principal basis, and the invocation of Rule 7 was improper. They also disputed the reliance on certain instructions by the Revenue and argued against the extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had admitted to making clearances to consignment agents and not selling goods at the factory gate in their submissions before the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's new assertion of selling goods at the factory gate was unsubstantiated and could not be accepted at that stage.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules, emphasizing that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support their claim of selling goods at the factory gate. The definition of "place of removal" under Section 4(3)(c)(iii) includes premises of consignment agents, which was admitted by the appellant in their earlier submissions. Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules specifies the assessment procedure in such cases. Since the appellant's defense was found to be unsubstantiated and inconsistent with their previous admissions, the Tribunal upheld the valuation done by the lower authorities.

Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal held that the appellant's argument of revenue neutrality lacked evidence and was unsupported. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's duty was to clearly disclose the sales made through consignment agents to avoid confusion. Consequently, the extended period of limitation was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand of Central Excise duty and penalties, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding the valuation of goods and the extended period of limitation. The decision was pronounced on 19.02.2018.