2003 (12) TMI 371 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal successful: Penalty & interest set aside for unintentional duty error.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty and interest imposed. It emphasized that there was no intentional evasion of duty, ... Demand - Limitation - Penalty and Interest Issues:1. Valuation of free supply items for Exhaust System.2. Allegation of suppression of facts leading to short-levy.3. Contention of penalty imposition.4. Dispute regarding time-bar applicability.5. Correct valuation of the catalyst for duty calculation.Issue 1 - Valuation of free supply items for Exhaust System:The case involved a dispute over the valuation of Exhaust System components supplied by the appellant to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. The appellant had initially adopted a 'Standard Price' for free supply items but later realized an error in the valuation. The appellant contended that the value of these items was erroneously calculated at 115% of the actual value as per Central Excise Valuation Rules. The appellant voluntarily remitted the differential duty amount to rectify the error.Issue 2 - Allegation of suppression of facts leading to short-levy:The Central Excise authority issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant had suppressed facts leading to short-levy of duty. However, the appellant argued that the initial short-payment was not intentional but a result of failure to correctly incorporate changes in the price of free supply items. The appellant rectified the error before any proceedings were initiated and contended that there was no intent to evade duty as the amount paid was available as credit to the buyer.Issue 3 - Contention of penalty imposition:The appellant argued that the facts did not warrant the imposition of a penalty as there was no contumacious conduct to evade duty. They relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need for positive evidence of fraud or suppression to invoke penalty provisions. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the penalty and interest claimed by the authorities.Issue 4 - Dispute regarding time-bar applicability:The Commissioner rejected the appellant's claim of the error being detected voluntarily, stating it was discovered during an audit visit. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support this claim, as no details of the audit visit or objections raised were provided in the record. The appellant's contention that the short-levy was due to oversight rather than intentional evasion was upheld.Issue 5 - Correct valuation of the catalyst for duty calculation:A key contention was the correct valuation of the catalyst used in the Exhaust System. The appellant argued that the 115% rule applied to captively consumed goods, not purchased items like the catalyst. The Tribunal agreed that the valuation method used by M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. was incorrect, and the appellant's oversight in not adjusting the value correctly did not amount to intentional evasion of duty.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty and interest imposed, emphasizing that the case did not involve intentional evasion of duty but rather a misunderstanding in valuation methods for free supply items and purchased components.