Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 813 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - under-invoicing of products - veneers - mis-declaration of higher quality veneers as low quality veneers - scope of SCN - The appellants rebutted the allegation in the SCN and contended that the allegations were based on assumptions and presumptions - Held that: - the allegation of under invoicing is well established on the basis of the investigation done by revenue. The seized records indicate both the recovery of billed amounts as well as additional amounts recovered as OA by cash - The statement of other employees of NVP not only fully corroborates and supports the documents recovered, but also clearly brings out the fact that NVP was recovering amounts in addition to invoiced prices which were not part of the assessable value of the goods for purposes of charging excise duty. The accessed private records were in fact maintained by the staff of the office and contained information correlatable to the invoices which are statutory records. Consequently, these records cannot be ignored and can be made basis for confirming the allegation of undervaluation. With effect from 01.07.2000, the concept of value in Section 4 of Central Excise Act was changed. The concept of transaction value has been introduced w.e.f. 01.07.2000. Transaction value refers to the actual amount charged for the transaction - By definition, a necessary concomitant of transaction value is that the price should be the sole consideration for the sale. Thus, in a scenario where the buyer has to necessarily pay an amount in cash over and above the prices indicated in the invoices, as was the case w.r.t. the appellants, the invoice values cannot be regarded as transaction values. This is because one of the necessary conditions for the existence of a transaction value on each removal at the factory gate is not satisfied. The question before us is whether, on the basis of available evidence, can we come to the conclusion that the goods were undervalued and whether duty demand is justified. It is very well established that in quasi-judicial proceedings, as in civil cases, the principle to be applied to evaluate the evidence is preponderance of probabilities. The investigation done by the Revenue has established the allegation of underinvoicing. Consequently, the demand of differential duty as confirmed by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order is upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|