Full Judgment
2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that he does not mind for remand of the matter for de novo consideration however, the Collector (Appeal)'s direction that re-determination of the value has to be as per Rule 7 of Valuation Rules, 1975 is not tenable in terms of the spirit of Section 4(1)(a)(iii) as the valuation has to be determined in terms of Section 4 and in terms of the evidence placed by the party. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed as to why Rules 4 to 6 of Valuation Rules are required to be rejected and the proceedings has to be done only under Rule 7. He submits that to that extent the order of Commissioner (Appeals) to restrict the proceedings under Rule 7 has got inherent defect and against the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the Order-in-Original travels beyond the terms of show cause notice and therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order on this point is valid.
However, giving direction to proceed under Rule 7 of Valuation Rules is wrong and requires to be modified at this stage.
3. The learned D.R. submits that the entire question of valuation arising as a result of relationship of the appellants with their customer M/s. Sabena Detergent Pvt. Ltd. He submits that even this aspect is required to be gone into by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the show cause notice, wherein it is made clear as to whether the price of M/s. Sabena Detergent Pvt. Ltd. should not be adopted. He further submits that in the show cause notice called upon the appellants it is stated as to why the retail price is not required to be adopted. He has no objection, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is modified in terms of the submissions of both sides.
4. The learned Advocate submits that the aspect pertaining to relationship between the appellants and buyer was not an issue in the show cause notice and hence, there cannot be any direction to the original authority on this point and is required to be given to the original authority is to restrict himself within the ambit of show cause notice.
5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the issue lies in a short compass and therefore, we dispose of the stay applications as infructuous and take up the appeals for disposal by allowing the Miscellaneous application, which seeks early hearing of the appeal. The reason being that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already set aside the Order-in-original and has remanded the case for de now consideration. While giving such direction, he has also given a direction that the value has to be re-determined as per Rule 7 of Valuation Rules read with Section 4 of the Act. However, he has not given any reasons as to whether Section 4 of Valuation Rules is not to be adopted and as to whether Sections 5 & 6 of Valuation Rules are not to be adopted. Therefore, we find there is inherent defect in the order and therefore, it requires to be modified. The Commissioner (Appeals) himself has accepted the plea of the appellants that the Assistant Commissioner had proceeded beyond the terms of show cause notice and therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been set aside on violation of principles of natural justice, which we find it a proper order. However, the direction for re-determination has to be done as per Rule 7 of Valuation Rules read with Section 4 of the Act is to be modified. We therefore, modify the Order-in-Original and direct the Assistant Commissioner to re-determine the value in terms of Section 4 and in terms of allegations made in the show cause notice.
The appellants shall be heard, after giving an opportunity of hearing and also to produce additional evidence that they may choose to do so to defend the case. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.