2004 (8) TMI 741 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses duty demands in Polyester Yarn valuation case

Collector of Central Excise, Vapi Versus Mahendra Texturising And Twisting Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents in a case concerning the valuation of Polyester Texturised Yarn and under-valuation allegations related to ... - Issues involved: Valuation of Polyester Texturised Yarn, under-valuation of clearances to Bhiwandi customers, payments made in the form of crossed bearer cheques, legal infirmity in dropping duty demands, expunction of finding regarding fictitious buyer names.Valuation of Polyester Texturised Yarn: The issue involved in the appeals was the valuation of Polyester Texturised Yarn manufactured and cleared by the respondents to customers in Bhiwandi and elsewhere. The department alleged under-valuation due to unknown and unverifiable customer names and addresses, along with payments made through crossed bearer cheques. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of under-valuation or extra receipt of sale consideration. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was held that unless sales realization exceeded the invoice amount, under-valuation could not be proven. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop duty demands amounting to significant sums.Legal Infirmity in Dropping Duty Demands: The Tribunal examined the case in light of previous decisions and found no legal infirmity in the Commissioner's order dropping duty demands totaling &8377; 1,73,11,872/- and &8377; 55,11,497/-. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of evidence to prove any flow back justifying rejection of invoice value, along with no basis for the under-valuation allegations, supported the decision to dismiss the duty demands. The Tribunal applied the ratio from a previous order to the present case, concluding that the Commissioner's decision was justified and upheld it.Expunction of Finding Regarding Fictitious Buyer Names: The assessees sought expunction of the Commissioner's finding that the names of buyers shown in the invoices were partially fictitious. Despite this request, the Tribunal, given its decision to uphold the Commissioner's order dropping the proceedings against the assessees, deemed it unnecessary to address the issue raised in the cross-objection and subsequently dismissed it.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues surrounding the valuation of Polyester Texturised Yarn, under-valuation allegations, legal infirmity in dropping duty demands, and the expunction of findings regarding fictitious buyer names. The decision favored the respondents, dismissing the duty demands and upholding the Commissioner's order, thereby concluding the legal proceedings in their favor.