9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 241 - AT - Central ExcisePrice variation clause - differential duty on goods cleared from their factory, by revision of assessable value taking recourse to rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - challenge against re-assessment under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that clearances were effected to themselves and, therefore, it is the conformity of the invoice value to the relevant provision in Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 that needs to be ascertained. According to Learned Counsel, rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, by recourse to proviso in rule 9 therein, is intended to be invoked only when the entire clearances are so effected. This fact, though brought before the lower authorities, did not appear to have impressed them in the absence of any legal authority for the claim. While the decision of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS STERLITE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 2017 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT MUMBAI had been rendered after the impugned order was issued, that in re Ispat Industries Ltd and in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALLANDHAR VERSUS MAX INDIA LTD. 2008 (5) TMI 214 - CESTAT NEW DELHI were available even when the dispute came up for adjudication. The lower authorities cannot be faulted for not having been convinced that, in the absence of judicial affirmation, the stand of the assessee did not bind them. Thus, it would be appropriate for the matter to be decided afresh by the first appellate authority for which purpose we set aside the impugned order - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
Issues involved: Legal sanctity of differential duty on goods cleared from factory, applicability of rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, dispute over duty liability for transactions with related entity, challenge against re-assessment under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary: The appeal by M/s Axiom Impex International Ltd concerns the imposition of differential duty on goods cleared from their factory, based on revision of assessable value u/s rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, due to a relationship with the recipient. The appellant manufactures ropes from 'high density polyethylene (HDPE)' and 'polypropylene (PP)' cleared to unrelated persons and to Unit II, an export oriented unit (EOU). The duty liability discrepancy led to a demand of Rs. 20,16,415 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, which was challenged unsuccessfully before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-IV), Mumbai Zone - I, resulting in the current appeal. The appellant argued that the transaction value of clearances to unrelated persons should suffice for duty payment, citing rule 4 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant also referenced relevant case law and decisions by the Tribunal to support their position. However, the Authorized Representative contended that the clearances were by 'stock transfer' and required valuation under rule 8 of Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not find legal authority to support the appellant's claim, despite references to relevant decisions. The first appellate authority's inference lacked legal sustenance, leading to the decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for further review by the first appellate authority.
|
