Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2012 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 356 - SC - Central ExciseDifferential duty - assessee being manufacturer of Washing Machines demand raised by Revenue on ground of undercharging of sale price decided in favor of assessee by first appellate authority & Tribunal Held that - In our considered view, the Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority have not committed any error whatsoever and findings and the conclusions reached by those Authorities cannot be characterized as perverse. Therefore, appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. 2. Provisional assessment of goods under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules. 3. Allegations of underpricing to avoid duty payment. 4. Appeals before Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals). 5. Pre-deposit requirement. 6. Tribunal remand and subsequent decision. 7. Appeal against First Appellate Authority's decision. 8. Review of orders by Supreme Court. Analysis: 1. The Civil Appeals challenged the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the assessee-manufacturer of Washing Machines. The Tribunal's decision was impugned before the Supreme Court. 2. The assessee had provisionally assessed goods under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The Adjudicating Authority issued show cause notices for differential duty payment from April 1994 to June 1998, alleging underpricing to evade duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands and penalties, claiming that the assessee underpriced products compared to related party sales to avoid duty payment. The assessee's response, including documents like agreements and invoices, was rejected, leading to the demands being upheld. 4. Aggrieved by the Adjudicating Authority's order, the assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), who directed a pre-deposit of duty. The High Court reduced the pre-deposit amount after a writ petition, which was upheld through subsequent appeals. 5. The Revenue challenged the First Appellate Authority's decision before the Tribunal, which remanded the matter for further consideration due to document scrutiny concerns. 6. The First Appellate Authority, upon reconsideration, set aside the demands raised by the Adjudicating Authority in a fresh order, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals against the First Appellate Authority's decision, prompting the Revenue to approach the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower authorities' findings and conclusions, dismissing the appeals. 8. After reviewing the orders of lower authorities, the Supreme Court found no errors or perversity in their decisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal and First Appellate Authority's conclusions were deemed sound, warranting no interference by the Supreme Court.
|