2015 (10) TMI 1845 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition - Valuation - related person - Short payment of duty - revenue neutral exercise since the recipient is able to avail Cenvat Credit - Appellant contended that order passed by the Appellate Commissioner is a non speaking one to the extent it has not considered and dealt with the most important contentions raised before it - Held that - in the absence of any reasons having been assigned for not accepting the principal contention raised by the petitioner it is evident that the impugned order suffers from the vice of breach of principles of natural justice. It is settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai 1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT that the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Supreme Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies viz. where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The present case therefore clearly falls within the categories enumerated in the above decision viz. violation of the principles of natural justice. - writ petition admitted. Thus under rule 8 of the Valuation Rules if the assessee does not sell excisable goods but such goods are used for his own consumption or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles the value of such goods shall be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. Under rule 9 of the Valuation Rules when the arrangement of assessee is such that the excisable goods are not sold by it except through a related person the value of the goods shall be the normal transaction value at which they are sold by the related person at the time of removal to buyers (not being related person) or where such goods are not sold to such buyers to buyers (being related person) who sells the goods in retail. Appellate Commissioner has lost sight of the main contention raised by the petitioner that it is not liable to pay duty either under rule 8 or rule 9 of the Valuation Rules because the related party has already paid central excise duty on the transaction value of the goods sold by it. The facts reveal that the petitioner had made reference to rule 8 of the Valuation Rules only by way of an alternate submission and the controversy was not as to which of the two rules would apply. The petitioner has also produced before the concerned authorities documentary evidence to co-relate the sales made by the petitioner to VCL at which point of time central excise duty was paid on the transaction value which however have not been considered by either authority. Therefore as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders suffer from the infirmity of being nonreasoned orders as the same do not deal with the main contention raised by the petitioner. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights. Thus giving sufficient reasons to demonstrate that the relevant factors having considered objectively is a primary requirement to be satisfied by a judicial or quasi judicial authority. The requirement of reasons has been considered to be virtually a component of human rights. Under the circumstances the impugned orders which suffer from the basic infirmity of being non-reasoned orders inasmuch as both the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate Commissioner have failed to consider the relevant factors and the submissions advanced by the petitioner cannot be sustained. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Related party transactions and excise duty valuation.
2. Non-consideration of principal contentions by adjudicating and appellate authorities.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 despite alternative remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Related Party Transactions and Excise Duty Valuation:
The petitioner company, engaged in filling cylinders with industrial gases, sold these to a related company, VCL, which then re-labelled and sold them. The revenue claimed that the petitioner and VCL were related persons, necessitating that excise duty be assessed on the price at which VCL sold the goods. The petitioner argued that since VCL paid excise duty on the final selling price, there was no short payment of duty. The petitioner also contended that the duty paid by VCL should be considered as payment by the petitioner, thus nullifying the demand for differential duty.

2. Non-consideration of Principal Contentions by Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities:
The petitioner highlighted that both the adjudicating authority and the appellate commissioner failed to address the core contention that VCL, as a related person, had already paid excise duty on the final selling price. Despite the petitioner providing detailed submissions and documentary evidence, these were not considered in the final orders. The appellate commissioner misunderstood the issue, focusing incorrectly on whether duty should be paid under Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court found that the authorities did not provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's primary contention, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court's precedent in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan emphasized that orders must contain reasons to show proper application of mind, which was absent in this case. The lack of reasons rendered the orders non-speaking and arbitrary.

4. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 Despite Alternative Remedy:
The court addressed the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that the petition was filed on grounds of breach of natural justice and non-reasoned orders. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, the court held that extraordinary circumstances, such as violation of natural justice, justify bypassing the alternative remedy. The court concluded that the petitioner's case fell within these exceptions, making the writ petition maintainable.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the orders of the appellate and adjudicating authorities, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The authorities were directed to address the petitioner's contentions regarding the excise duty paid by VCL and to pass a reasoned order after verifying the documentary evidence. The court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders to uphold the principles of natural justice and maintain litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.