2006 (11) TMI 72 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal allows appeal in duty calculation case, emphasizing proper goods valuation.

ADVANCE INDUSTRIES CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT

The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant company in a case involving the valuation of goods for duty ... Demand – Revenue raised a SCN against appellant and demand for differential duty and imposed personal penalty against it – The Commissioner(Appeal) after considering the evidences allowed appeal with consequential relief Issues involved:1. Valuation of goods for duty calculation.2. Classification of goods as waste and scrap.3. Evidence of substandard goods generation.4. Proper determination of scrap generated.5. Flow-back of money from customers.6. Basis of sale of goods (weight vs. piece-wise).Issue 1: Valuation of goods for duty calculationThe case involved the appellant company clearing Petter Connecting Rods and Lister Connecting Rods at a lower price than the usual market value, leading the Revenue to raise a show cause notice for recovery of duty on the differential value. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty as well. The appellate authority considered the goods as rejected parts and scrap, questioning the imposition of duty liability on these rejected parts at the value determined for standard-sized parts. The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and directed a modified demand, emphasizing the need for a proper determination of the scrap generated.Issue 2: Classification of goods as waste and scrapThe appellant company contended that the goods in question were not regular parts but rejected parts and scrap, accumulated over time and sold on a weight basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the substandard quality of the parts and observed that any variation in quality led to rejection by customers. The appellate tribunal found merit in the appellant company's contention that the goods were sold as rejected parts based on weight, supporting their claim of being scrap. The absence of evidence contrary to this claim led to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.Issue 3: Evidence of substandard goods generationThe emergence of substandard qualities of the parts was not in doubt, as admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, doubts were expressed regarding the quantum of substandard goods generated. The appellate tribunal found no reason to discard the appellant company's contention, especially noting the absence of evidence of any flow-back of money from customers due to substandard quality.Issue 4: Proper determination of scrap generatedThe appellate authority directed an inquiry into the percentage of scrap generated over a year by physical verification of the stock of scrap in the appellant unit. The tribunal emphasized the need for a fair determination of scrap generated to avoid imposing duty liability on rejected parts at the value of standard-sized parts.Issue 5: Flow-back of money from customersThere was no evidence of any flow-back of money from customers due to substandard quality, supporting the appellant company's claim that the goods were rejected parts sold as scrap.Issue 6: Basis of sale of goods (weight vs. piece-wise)The basis of sale of goods on weight rather than piece-wise supported the appellant company's claim that the goods were rejected parts and scrap, further strengthening their argument against the Revenue's stand. The absence of remarks about the goods being substandard in the RG-I Register did not provide sufficient reason to reject the appellant's claim.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential reliefs to the appellant company based on the classification of the goods as rejected parts and scrap, sold on a weight basis, and the absence of evidence to contradict their claim.