TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal emphasizes using actual selling prices for duty calculation in remand appeal, granting fair opportunity.</h1> <h3>ANAND DUPLEX LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT</h3> ANAND DUPLEX LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 211 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Duty liability on consignment sales basis- Calculation of duty based on consignment agents' selling price- Allegation of underpayment of duty- Penalty imposition on the manufacturer and directorsAnalysis:1. Duty Liability on Consignment Sales Basis:The appellants, engaged in manufacturing paper and paper board, sold finished goods on consignment sales basis through appointed consignment agents across India. The Central Excise authority sought information regarding the duty paid by the appellants at the time of transfer to consignment agents compared to the selling price at which the agents sold the goods. The Department alleged that duty should be paid based on the price at which consignment agents sold the goods, leading to a significant differential duty demand.2. Calculation of Duty Based on Consignment Agents' Selling Price:The Department adopted a sale price of Rs. 26 per Kg of Duplex Board by a specific consignment agent as the basis for calculating duty. However, the appellants later provided invoices showing that the actual selling prices by consignment agents ranged from Rs. 15 to Rs. 17 per Kg. The Tribunal acknowledged that the actual selling price by consignment agents represents the normal transaction value of the goods and should be used for duty levy.3. Allegation of Underpayment of Duty:The appellants initially paid duty based on the factory gate price of finished goods but were accused of underpaying duty by not considering the actual selling prices by consignment agents. The differential duty demand was substantial, leading to multiple show cause notices proposing recovery of the alleged underpaid duty, along with interest and penalties.4. Penalty Imposition on the Manufacturer and Directors:The Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the case, confirming the duty demand, imposing penalties equal to the duty amount on the manufacturer, and imposing additional penalties on the directors/general manager of the company. However, upon review, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for reevaluation based on the actual invoices provided by the appellants. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the duty demand, as well as the penalty imposition, after allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to present their defense.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remand, emphasizing the importance of using the actual selling prices by consignment agents for duty calculation and ensuring a proper reevaluation of the duty liability and penalties imposed on the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
