9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant's customers to ascertain as to whether any amount over and above the invoice price had been charged by the appellant nor any inquiry has been conducted for ascertain as to what was the prevailing market price of the alloy and non-alloys rounds during each financial year. If the prevailing market price of the alloy and non-alloys rounds during the period of dispute was much higher than the price at which the appellant were showing the sale, there could have been a basis for doubting the declared assessable value, but no such inquiry has been conducted. When in terms of Section 4 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the assessable value is the transaction value as defined in this Section and the transaction value of the goods at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il to November, 2011 was 0.75%, 3.05%, 5.40%, 6.20% and 2.97 % respectively, initiated inquiries to ascertain the reasons for the same. On the basis of the inquiry, the department was of the view that the value addition shown by the appellant during the period of dispute was very low and as such, the appellant appeared to have under-declared the assessable value of the goods on which the duty was being paid. It was alleged that the appellant declared only that much value of their final products so that the duty liability could be discharged through cenvat credit and only negligible amount is required to be paid through PLA. The department was of the view that the correct value addition during 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and April, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed along with stay application. 6. Heard both the sides. Though today this matter was listed for hearing of only the stay application, after hearing this matter for sometime, the Bench was of the view that the appeal itself can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, with the consent of both the sides, the matter was heard for final disposal. 7. Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that while the duty demand has been confirmed by alleging that the appellant have under declared their assessable value and that the price is not the sole consideration for sale and that the value has been declared in such a manner that the bulk of the duty can be paid through cenvat credit, no inquiry has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in it and pleaded that the department, through inquiry, had determined the value addition per M.T. by totalling up the expenses on coal, electricity, wages, castings, lubricants and gross profit booked in the balance sheets and dividing it by the total quantity of rounds cleared, that on this basis, value addition, per M.T. of rounds during 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 was determined as ₹ 2666 M.T., 2700 M.T., 2200 M.T., 1942 PMT and ₹ 2098 PMT respectively while the actual value addition based on the sale price on which the duty had been paid, is much lower for which there is no satisfactory explanation given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual value addition shown by the appellant during these periods was in the range of ₹ 500/- to ₹ 1500/- PMT. According to the department, the appellant have not been able to give any explanation further. However, it is also not disputed that the appellant not only manufactured the goods on their own account but also did the job work for which also, the coat, electricity, wages, etc. and other raw materials would have been used. The quantity cleared as mentioned in the table in para 1.3. of the impugned order is the quantity of Alloy and non-Alloys rounds manufactured and cleared by the appellant on their own account and as such, these figures do not include the quantity of rounds manufactured and cleared on job work basis. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry value. If the price had been influenced by considerations other than sale, that consideration should have been mentioned. But the order does not mention any additional consideration which had influenced the price. Reading the impugned order gives the impression as if the allegations made in the show cause notice have been summarily confirmed without any analysis. When in terms of Section 4 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the assessable value is the transaction value as defined in this Section and the transaction value of the goods at the time and place of removal i.e. at factory gate, is available and no evidence has been produced indicating that the sale price had been under declared, there is no justification for determining the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
