Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 739 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - Scope of SCN - Valuation of goods - Held that:- One of the grounds taken for this allegation was that there were additional considerations flowing from M/s. Legrand to M/s. DIPL by way of free supply of moulds, dyes, certain equipments, free supply of R&D material, provision of manpower to supervise quality control and so on. Thus the allegation that additional consideration flowed from Legrant to M/s. DIPL was clearly spelt out in the show cause notice in several paragraphs in the show cause notice. It was further alleged that in view of these considerations, DIPL was incurring a loss of ₹ 12 lakhs per year thus keeping the price below the cost of production. Thus, in the show cause notice the charge of undervaluation against the applicant-assessee and the grounds therefore were clearly spelt out. Such consideration ought to be included in the assessable value under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Mere non-mention of Rule in the show cause notice does not vitiate the show cause notice. One of the decisions relied upon for inclusion of the additional consideration in the assessable value of the goods sold by DIPL is the apex Court's decision in the case of Fiat India Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 791 - SUPREME COURT]. In the said case, the hon'ble Apex Court held that if goods are sold below cost, resulting in artificial depression in prices such prices are not "normal price" for the purpose of levy of excise duty. It is a settled position in law that when the apex Court lays down the law, the same has to be applied with full force in similar facts obtaining in other cases. In these circumstances, the argument that this Tribunal committed an error merits rejection. The order was passed by the Tribunal on 14th November 2013 when the said circular was not in existence at all. Therefore, when the circular was not in existence, we do not understand how the order passed by the Tribunal could be faulted on the basis of the said circular. In any case, the circular was issued by the Board which is not binding on this Tribunal. Matter remanded back - Rectification denied.
|