2003 (10) TMI 470 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants stay applications on duty and penalty waiver, emphasizing Circular interpretation

The Tribunal granted the stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, citing conflicting views on the interpretation of Circular ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation Issues:Stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on conflicting views on the interpretation of Circular regarding assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:The applicants filed three stay applications seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as per the impugned orders. The Counsel for the appellants argued that the Circular issued by the CBEC in 1975 clarified the scope of various provisions of Section 4, Valuation Rules, 1975. It was explained that if a statutory price is fixed, duty must be paid on that price even if goods are sold to a related person. Additionally, if a ceiling price is declared by law and goods are sold below that price, the lower price should be the basis for assessment, subject to conditions of Section 4(1)(a) - as conveyed in the Circular to the Trade.The Counsel further referenced a decision by the WRB in a case involving Glaxo India Ltd, which emphasized that the maximum retail price, not the maximum wholesale price, should be considered for valuation under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative cited a decision by the Delhi Bench in the case of CCE, Indore v. Panchsheel Organics to support their argument.After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted conflicting views by different Benches on the issue at hand. It was highlighted that in cases of conflicting interpretations of Circulars, the Circular is binding on authorities as per a Supreme Court ruling in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries. Given the differing opinions of various Benches and the Supreme Court's stance on Circular interpretation, the Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the stay applications unconditionally, acknowledging the need for clarity and consistency in applying the Circular's directives.