Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 185 - AT - Central ExciseUndervaluation of goods - The case of Revenue is that the two distributors SVA and JKA were fictitious firms and the price at which goods were shown to be sold by these firms should be adopted for valuation of the goods. In the case of sale through consignment agent the argument is that the goods were being sold for the first time only by the consignment agent and the price at which consignment agent sold the goods less admissible deductions should be the assessable value rather than the value adopted for stock transfer pursuant to which demand along with interest and penalties u/s 173Q, 11AC of the Act arise. Held that - The adjudicating authority is directed to verify the calculations if any submitted by the appellants within 30 days and re-calculate the liability to ensure that demand corresponds to the quantity of goods cleared from the factory during the relevant period and based on prices at which goods were billed by SVA and JKA taking the prices of SVA and JKA as cum-duty price. In the price at the premises of consignment agent becomes relevant only from 28-09-96 when the definition of place of removal in section 4 of Central Excise Act was amended. The contention of Revenue is that the goods sold through consignment agent was BHC 50% in drum packing and such goods in the same packing was not being sold at the factory gate. I also find that the Show Cause Notice shows that deduction of freight at the rate of Rs. 250 per Metric ton has been allowed. No argument is raised that this deduction is not fair and the actual freight amount is more. So I do not see any merit in the argument of the appellant in this regard. However if there is any benefit that may accrue due to price of goods in different packages being sold the assesse through consignment agents the appellant may submit worksheet showing such difference to the adjudicating authority which shall also be examined by him for appropriate decision. In the matter of penalty of we do not find any reason to interfere. In the case of penalty under section 11AC for the balance period the penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty liability for that period if such penalty is paid within 30 days of receipt of communication showing correct duty liability. If payments are not made within the period laid down penalty equal to duty evaded will be payable. Thus the appeal is allowed partially to the extent indicated above.
|