2008 (3) TMI 115 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of the impugned goods transferred to another unit of the same appellant - appellants also sell substantial part of the product to independent buyers at arms length price dept. has applied the method of valuation adopting 115% of the cost of production - appellants states that in such a case the valuation is required to be done on the basis of comparable value adopting the price of sale to independent buyers - appeals are allowed by way of Remand

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods transferred to another unit, method of valuation, application of comparable value, refund of excess duty, Debit Note issuance, remand of appeals.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, the primary issue revolved around the valuation of goods transferred to another unit of the same appellant. The Department had applied a method of valuation by adopting 115% of the cost of production. However, the appellant argued that valuation should be based on comparable value, citing a previous decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided to waive the requirement of pre-deposit, remanding the appeals to the original authority for a fresh decision in light of the cited Larger Bench decision. The original authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants before issuing a fresh order.

Another issue in the appeal involved a small amount related to a Debit Note issued by the appellants. The appellant claimed that although the debit note was issued, the amount had not been received by them. The appellant undertook to produce a necessary certificate from a Chartered Accountant to support this claim before the original authority. The Tribunal directed the original authority to address the issue of the debit note while passing a fresh order, ensuring that the appellants are given an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Ultimately, all six stay petitions were allowed, and all six appeals were allowed by way of remand. The judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 6-3-2008. The decision highlights the importance of proper valuation methods, the application of legal precedents, and the need for a fair opportunity of hearing in such matters.