Amod Stampings Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....range ii, broach vide his letter no. p1/as/28a/84/1349, dated 30-7-1984 and no. mp/pl-as/28a/2142, dated 20-12-1984 are set aside and the application in form e.a. 2 under section 35e(4) of the central excises and salt act, 1944 filed by the assistant collector central excise, division v. baroda vide authorisation letter dated 25-7-1985 issued under section 35e(2) of the said act is allowed." 3. on going through the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that party has sold goods to others also in addition to captive consumption, we concur with the view expressed by the collector (appeals) that the price at which the goods are sold to the customers are to be taken as price in respect of the goods which were captively consumed. since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, we accept the contention of the revenue and in the result, the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed.

Judgment:

1. Case called. None appeared on behalf of the appellants nor we find any request for adjournment. On going through the issue involved in this case, we felt that the matter can be disposed of on merits in the absence of the party. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR for the Revenue.

2. Shri Sharma submitted that dispute relates to determination of value in respect of goods under Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules. According to the party the goods were to be valued in terms, of Rule 6(b)(2) of the Valuation Rules since goods were captively consumed. According to the department since the party has sold similar goods .directly to the customers and similarly goods were captively consumed the price at which the goods are sold in public that price is to be taken as basis in determining the price of the goods which were captively consumed. In other words, Rule 6(b)(1) of the Valuation Rules is applicable in determining the value as comparable is available. We find that this issue has been properly considered by the Collector (Appeals) in Para 5 of the impugned order. The same is reproduced below :- "I have carefully considered the submission made in the E.A. 2 application as well as the submissions made by the Respondents M/s.

Amod Stampings. After going through both ground of the case, application under Section 35B(4) and cross-objection memo and arguments made during personal hearing, it is observed that the Respondents sold laminations to various parties in prices ranging from Rs. 30.75 to Rs. 32.29 excluding packing charges. So the provision under Rule 6(b)(i) may be involved and price is required to be determined at any rate between Rs. 30.75 to Rs. 32.29. In view of the above, the prices declared in price list No. 189/84-85 dated 30-7-1984 and price list No. 519/11/84-85 dated 17-12-1984 and approved by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range II, Broach vide his letter No. P1/AS/28A/84/1349, dated 30-7-1984 and No. MP/PL-AS/28A/2142, dated 20-12-1984 are set aside and the application in form E.A. 2 under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Division V. Baroda vide authorisation letter dated 25-7-1985 issued under Section 35E(2) of the said Act is allowed." 3. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that party has sold goods to others also in addition to captive consumption, we concur with the view expressed by the Collector (Appeals) that the price at which the goods are sold to the customers are to be taken as price in respect of the goods which were captively consumed. Since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, we accept the contention of the Revenue and in the result, the appeal filed by the party is hereby dismissed.