2008 (4) TMI 41 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms transaction value for excise duty, emphasizes pricing similarity over relationship influence. Final decision on clandestine removal allegations.

The Supreme Court upheld the transaction value between the assessee and the related party for excise duty assessment, emphasizing that pricing similarity ... Revenue allege that assessee, BTL sells its product to STL at a far less price than STL sells it in the whole sale trade - BTL has been paying the duty on the price at which it was sold to STL – but revenue contend to take AV on basis of price at which products are sold by STL in the open market – held that BTL and STL are not related persons - relationship of BTL and STL did not influence the price therefore, the transaction value between BTL & STL has to be accepted for valuation Issues:1. Assessment of excise duty on products sold by the assessee to related persons at a lower price.2. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods and sale without paying excise duty.Analysis:Issue 1: Assessment of excise duty on products sold to related persons at a lower priceThe case involved the assessment of excise duty on products sold by the assessee to related parties at a lower price. The revenue contended that the assessable value should be based on the price at which the products were sold in the open market, while the assessee paid duty based on the price at which it sold the products to the related party. The Tribunal determined that the assessee and the related party were not related persons, and the price at which the products were sold to the related party was similar to the price at which they were sold to other customers. The Supreme Court acknowledged that even if the related party status was established, it did not influence the pricing, and the transaction value had to be accepted based on the similarity of prices across sales channels.Issue 2: Allegations of clandestine removal of goodsThe revenue had issued show cause notices alleging clandestine removal of goods and sale without paying excise duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the Commissioner. However, during the proceedings, it was informed that the proceedings regarding clandestine removal had been dropped, and the decision had become final. The Supreme Court did not delve into the question of whether the parties were related but emphasized that since the products were sold at similar prices to different customers, the relationship between the parties did not impact pricing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the transaction value between the parties.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the transaction value between the assessee and the related party for excise duty assessment, emphasizing that the pricing similarity across sales channels negated the influence of their relationship on pricing. Additionally, the Court noted the finality of the decision regarding the allegations of clandestine removal of goods, ultimately dismissing the appeals.