Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1093 - CESTAT ALLAHABADValuation - consumption of gas required for production of steel - it appeared to Revenue that M/s. Rathi Udyog Limited received the balance consideration that is ‘Actual Value Received - Actual Value Declared’ from the customers in cash without reflecting it in the Books of Accounts - Jurisdiction - Held that: - During the relevant period the provisions of assessment were that the assessee was required to file classification list under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, pricelist under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 before the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. It was the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to decide classification of goods on the basis of classification list and assessable value on the basis of pricelist. Decision on pricelist was for arriving at assessable value by the Assistant Commissioner and such decision was treated as adjudication and on such finalization of value, if the Jurisdictional Commissioner disagreed then he was required to review such approved pricelist and give direction to the Divisional Assistant Commissioner to file appeal against such finalization of pricelist before the Jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case the pricelist were admittedly filed by the appellant. The Divisional Assistant Commissioner did not finalize them. Therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to call upon the assessee for adoption of any other prices, till such time, assessable value through said pricelist was finalized by the Divisional Assistant Commissioner. So far as undervaluation charges are concerned, the Jurisdictional Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to demand duty till such time the pricelists were finalized and if aggrieved appeal was not filed before Commissioner (Appeals) and such appeal was not decided by Commissioner (Appeals). The ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I v. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 669 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], is squarely applicable in the present case wherein it was ruled that on the basis of consumption of energy required for manufacture of unit quantity of goods quantum of manufacture of goods cannot be arrived at and such conclusion of manufacture shall be treated as presumptive. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|