TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice lower than the price declared in their price declarations. Show Cause notice was issued for the period July, 1997 to December, 1997 demanding Central Excise Duty of Rs. 3,08,538.00 which was issued by the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 17-6-1998. Appeal was filed against the said order. Commissioner of Appeals who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 23-3-2000 remanded the case back for de novo consideration. The Adjudicating Authority again confirmed the demands amounting to Rs. 3,08,538.00 under Section 11A and also charging interest under Section 11AB and imposing penalty under Rule 173Q vide Order-in-Original dated 6-12-2001. The Appellant preferred appeal against the order and the Commissioner of Appeals, Central Excise, Mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the new Rule 173C required that the value under Section 4 shall be declared in the invoices themselves. Thus, effectively, each invoice was for all purposes a Price Declaration itself. The system of assessment of invoice value was also recognized by Central Board of Excise and Customs in Circular No. 62/62/1994, dated 20th September, 1994. The second proviso of the Rule 173C(1) provided for filling of declarations by the assessee of the type mentioned therein. The Appellant was covered by the second proviso, such price declarations were being filed by it under the said second proviso to Rule 173C. He submits that since the assessable values were being declared on each invoice in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 read with Rule 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are also imposing penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) by a consolidated Order dated 22-10-2002 dismissed the appeals. 3. He submits that when there is no dispute with the price charged from the buyers, were those mentioned in the invoice, no duty can be demanded simply because revised price declaration were not filed. He submits that there is no provision of Law in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or in the Rules framed therein on the basis of which assessable value of the goods cleared during the said subsequent period of December 1994 to September, 1998 could be determined based on the said old price declaration effective from 1st June, 1994. The assessable value during the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 631 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 377 (Vidhya Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE) (iii) Reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 815 (T) = 2002 (52) RLT 980 (Hindustan Engg. & Industries Ltd. v. CCE) He, further, submits that in the instant case there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of law and levying of penalty under Rule 173Q was illegal. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed. 4. In reply learned SDR submits that filing of the declaration is mandatory and he reiterates and supports the order passed by the authorities below. 5. In present case the appellant had not charged any higher price from any buyer. There wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... :- (i) In the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot, reported in 2003 (58) RLT 193, the CEGAT- Mumbai Bench has held that Assessable value - Section 4 of CEA, 1944 - Normal price - Rule 173C of C.Ex. Rules, 1944 - Excise duty was paid on actual price charged, though it was lower than price declared under Rule 173C - no allegation of collection of differential price - actual price charged is normal price under Section 4 - demand based on price declared under procedural Rule 173C is not sustainable - appeal allowed. (ii) Similar view has been expressed in the case of Vidhya Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, A....