2023 (2) TMI 772 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - company was adopting the valuation as per Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 whereas the department s claim is that value should be determined in terms of Section 4A - suppression of facts with intent to evade duty or not - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the company M/s. JSL Industries Ltd. have been clearing their goods on payment of excise duty though valuing the goods under Section 4 and they were issuing the central excise invoices. The only dispute is that whether the goods should be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A. The company s stand was that they were supplying goods to industries therefore, they were under belief that goods should be valued under Section 4 - There are no mala fide intention on the part of these appellants. The penalty is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Central Excise valuation under Section 4 vs. Section 4A, Penalty imposition under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Central Excise Valuation Issue:
The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of goods under Central Excise Act, 1944. The company, M/s. JSL Industries Ltd., was valuing goods under Section 4, while the department contended that valuation should be as per Section 4A. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the department's claim, leading to a demand for differential duty and imposition of penalties under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Penalty Imposition Issue:
The Superintendent (AR) representing the Revenue argued that there was a suppression of fact in the evasion of excise duty by the company, with both the Director and CEO being involved in the affairs. The penalty under Rule 26(1) was justified based on these grounds.

Detailed Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the company had been clearing goods by paying excise duty under Section 4, issuing central excise invoices. The main contention was whether the goods should be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A. The company's defense was that they supplied goods to industries, hence believed valuation under Section 4 was appropriate. The Tribunal found no malicious intent on the part of the appellants in this specific case. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Rule 26(1) was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of mala fide intention and the peculiar circumstances surrounding the valuation issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the interpretation and application of Central Excise valuation provisions, specifically Sections 4 and 4A. It also addressed the imposition of penalties under Rule 26(1) in cases of alleged evasion of excise duty. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances and intent of the parties involved in determining the appropriate valuation method and penalty imposition in Central Excise matters.