2018 (3) TMI 1122 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - stock transfer - As per the Revenue the goods were being cleared on value lower than that at which they were being sold by the C& F Agents - time limitation - Held that - as regards limitation, there is a clear finding by the Tribunal that there was no malafide or suppression on the part of the assessee. Inasmuch as the limitation aspect already stand decided by the Tribunal, which order of the Tribunal was accepted by the department and no appeal was filed their against, Revenue cannot held to be aggrieved with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) granting limitation benefit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Alleged undervaluation of goods cleared to C&F agents - Demand of duty, interest, penalty - Confiscation of property - Appeal before Tribunal - Tribunal's observations on filing of declaration, RT-12 returns, and documents - Tribunal's remand order - Commissioner (Appeals' order granting limitation benefit and dropping penalty - Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by Revenue against an order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the alleged undervaluation of goods cleared by M/s. Weikfield Products Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. to their C&F agents on a stock transfer basis. The Revenue claimed that the goods were cleared at a lower value than the selling price by the agents, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed penalties on the assessee, Joint Managing Director, and Manager Excise, and ordered the confiscation of property. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal's observations highlighted the submission of marketing patterns, RT-12 returns, and necessary documents by the appellant to the department, indicating no suppression of information.

The Tribunal emphasized compliance with Ministry's Circular and the submission of factory gate invoices and sale invoices to the Range officer. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of limitation and the quantum of demand needed reworking for six months, along with any penalty after a hearing, necessitating the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter. In the subsequent order, Commissioner (Appeals) extended the limitation benefit to the assessee, confirmed the demand for only six months, and dropped the penalty. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the records, found that the limitation aspect had been decided in favor of the assessee previously, with no malafide or suppression observed. As the department had accepted the Tribunal's earlier order on limitation without appeal, the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order was rejected, citing no justifiable reasons for interference.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent or suppression by the assessee regarding the limitation issue. The detailed analysis of submissions, compliance with circulars, and previous tribunal orders played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the case, leading to the rejection of Revenue's appeal.