2018 (3) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for reevaluation of evidence in Central Excise Valuation Rules appeal

M/s Sabic Innovative Plastics India P Ltd. Versus CCE & ST- Vadodara

The Tribunal set aside the demand against the appellant, directing the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the evidence presented in line with Rule 7 of ... Valuation - manufactured goods transferred from the factory, to the depot, from where the same were ultimately sold - case of Ld. Commissioner is that that sufficient documents were not produced - Held that: - there is no merit in the said observation of the Ld. Commissioner after going through the annexures enclosed with the Appeal Paper Book - adjudicating authority is directed to consider the evidences produced by the appellant in determining the assessable value for the relevant period as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Incorrect determination of assessable value of goods sold from depots- Application of Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000- Rejection of appellant's argument due to insufficient documentsAnalysis:1. Incorrect determination of assessable value of goods sold from depots:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 39 of CETA, 1985, faced a demand notice for incorrectly determining the assessable value of goods sold from depots during November 2009 to March 2014. Initially, they determined the assessable value based on a price list without applying Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Subsequently, they corrected this method and paid duty on the correct assessable value. The appellant contended that despite submitting detailed workings and relevant invoices to support their valuation method, the Commissioner erroneously confirmed the demand, citing lack of sufficient documents.2. Application of Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000:The central issue revolved around the application of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellant argued that they initially used the list price for determining assessable value, leading to higher duty payments. However, they later rectified this by adopting Rule 7 for the remaining period. The Commissioner's rejection of their argument was based on the purported lack of evidence supporting the valuation method as per Rule 7. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the annexures provided, found no merit in the Commissioner's observation and set aside the demand.3. Rejection of appellant's argument due to insufficient documents:The Commissioner's rejection of the appellant's argument primarily stemmed from the purported absence of evidence demonstrating the correct application of Rule 7 for determining the assessable value. Despite the appellant submitting detailed workings and relevant invoices, the Commissioner concluded that the methodology was not adequately substantiated. However, the Tribunal, after examining the evidence in the Appeal Paper Book, disagreed with the Commissioner's assessment. Consequently, the demand was set aside, and the adjudicating authority was directed to reevaluate the evidence presented by the appellant in line with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.