9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reportedly worked out on the basis of manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. But the details of actual sale price and the post manufacturing deductions were not shown in the said price list. Hence the Supdt. under his letter dt. 29-12-1980 asked for these details. The appellants in their letter dt. 14-1-1981, however, contended that in terms of the Division Bench's judgment, it was mandatory on the part of the Deptt. to give effect to the law laid down by the High Court with effect from 23-10-1980. They also contended that the assessable value cannot be higher than manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit and post manufacturing expenses and post manufacturing profit cannot be included. For purposes of arriving at this, they can furnish a certificate from the Chartered Accountant and the value should be approved based on such a certificate. Hence they refused to file a fresh price list or make any alternation to the price list already filed by them. They enclosed statements showing manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit per M.T. and accordingly indicated the prorata assessable value for 16 kg., 4 kg., 2 kg. and 1 kg. tins. They indicated that the data furnished in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. In reply to the S.C.N, the appellants contended that normal price in columns 3 and 4 is not actual sale price inclusive of several post/non-manufacturing expenses and the normal price as per the High Court judgment can only be the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. Hence there is no requirement for furnishing details in other columns. They also contended that variations in selling prices do not call for revision in assessable value, but when change in the costs takes place, revised assessable values are to be determined. The Asstt. Collector in his letter dt. 21-9-1981 again pointed out that it is necessary to give the selling price and indicate the various deductions on account of post manufacturing expenses for determining the actual assessable value as per the orders of the High Court. There is also a letter dated 23-9-1981 from the Range Supdt. to the appellants requesting them to send representative sale invoices for each month from January, 1981 to July, 1981 in respect of sales of veg. product at the factory gate, assuring that the same will be returned to them. The appellants in their letter dt. 25-9-1981 reite- r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elling price. Invoices of sale referred in the S.C.N. were scrutinised by the Deptt. and the Asstt. Collector has approved the assessable value after full enquiry. Hence alleged suppression cannot be sustained. However the Collector did not accept their contention and passed the impugned order, holding that the appellants have not challenged the proforma I in the proceedings before the High Court and they have deliberately withheld information regarding sale prices and did not file revised price lists and claimed deduction of post manufacturing expenses for those revised selling prices. They adopted non-cooperative attitude resulting in evasion of duty to the extent of about Rs. 2 lakhs, the interest payable on the evaded sum being Rs. 1 lakh over a period of 4 years. He ordered without prejudice to any action as may be necessary, as result of SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Supreme Court, he imposed only a penalty of Rs. 3.25 lakhs on the appellants. They duty demand was however not confirmed. The Ld. JDR stated that it is on account of the Deptt.'s SLP filed in the Supreme Court, where the entire judgment of the High Court has been challenged for assessing on the value excludi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the determination of value on manufacturing cost basis, they should have specifically challenged these provisions or at least moved the High Court for a clarificatory order on that aspect. In this case, we find that the Asstt. Collector has been repeatedly urging the appellant to give details of sale price and other deductions claimed therefrom, but the appellants on their own, refused to comply with this requirement without any authority of the High Court. Normally a price list is called for, whenever there is a revision in sale price either upward or downward. Even in terms of the law as laid down by the High Court in their own case, their claim for deduction of P.M.E was allowed and the High Court did not dispense with the requirement of furnishing actual sale price. They have not struck down the proforma I, under which the various details required for arriving at the assessable value have been prescribed. Moreover, even if the appellants contention that there cannot be automatic revision of assessable value based on manufacturing cost with every revision of sale price, is to be accepted by the authorities, there is a requirement on the part of the appellants to indicate the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to furnish the details for their own reasons based on their own conception of legal position, they can be alleged of deliberate action either to violate the Rules or to keep away the information required by the Deptt. Particularly in this case, when they were repeatedly asked for these details, there was a necessity on their part to place all the cards on the table to justify their stand. Enquiry envisaged under Rule 173L or Rule 173B is not to be construed as a roving enquiry based on search and seizure of the documents. It is based on the data furnished by the appellants, which was found to be inadequate. On this being pointed out by the Asstt. Collector, the assessee is bound to furnish the details, instead of withholding it. Having withheld the information called for, if such an action results in short levy, the appellants can not escape the penal provisions. 3.4 In the result, we uphold the liability of the appellant to penalty, in the context of the aforesaid factual position. 4. But then, we are to take note of the fact that at that time provisions relating to valuation were in a fluid stage and the High Courts were giving directions to work out the assessable values ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
