Transaction Value must govern excise valuation; retrospective revaluation using average-period prices and uncorroborated clandestine claims is impermissible.

Valuation for central excise must follow the transaction value principle: the price actually paid or payable is the assessable value and cannot be retrospectively revalued by applying average prices from a different period; therefore revaluation based on average sale prices from sample invoices is impermissible. Allegations of clandestine manufacture, clandestine removals or dual pricing require direct, tangible and corroborative evidence (e.g., unexplained input consumption, excess production records, discovery of unaccounted goods, transport and sales proceeds); mere sample invoices or internal records without corroboration are insufficient. Application of MRP is inappropriate where bulk or free supplies lacked MRP. Denial of SSI exemption lacked evidentiary foundation and is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority-based on alleged undervaluation, alleged clandestine manufacture and removal, dual pricing and on the basis of average sale price computed from sample invoices-was legally sustainable, and whether denial of exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for specified years was justified.

Analysis: Valuation for central excise where duty is charged with reference to value is governed by Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the assessable value is the transaction value, i.e., the price actually paid or payable for the goods sold, subject to statutory conditions. There is no statutory method permitting adoption of an average sale price of one period to revalue removals of another period. A subsequent reduction in price, by itself, does not establish evasion of duty if duties were correctly paid on the transaction value at the time of each removal. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal require tangible, direct and corroborative evidence such as unexplained receipt or consumption of raw materials, excess production corroborated by electricity or input consumption, discovery of unaccounted finished goods, proof of actual transportation and receipts of sale proceeds; mere sample invoices or internal records without further corroboration are insufficient. The evidence on record consisted primarily of 24 sample invoices and verification reports which did not establish existence of a separate unit at the Indore address, clandestine clearances, or dual invoicing substantiated by contemporaneous documentary proof. Bulk sales to the Government without MRP and instances of free supplies without MRP were factually shown and, in such circumstances, adoption of MRP for those clearances was not appropriate. Denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 was premised on the unsustained allegation of undervaluation and therefore lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

Conclusion: The demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties-being founded on average prices derived from limited sample invoices and uncorroborated allegations of clandestine clearances and dual pricing-is not sustainable; the denial of exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the relevant years is unsustainable. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order confirming duty, interest and penalties is set aside with consequential reliefs as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is leviable on transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, retrospective revaluation by applying average prices from a different period is impermissible and allegations of clandestine manufacture or dual pricing must be proved by direct and corroborative evidence before demands and denial of statutory exemptions can be sustained.

---