Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 13 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(108)ECC183, 2006ECR183(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. In this case the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Water-Filter-cum-Purifier, Water Cooler-cum-Purifier components and were clearing the bulk of their production to their subsidiary holding Company and the applicants were also clearing the parts of their production independent to their customers. The Revenue confirmed the demand on the ground that appellants were clearing hulk of their manufactured good to the principle holding Company i.e. M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited, as M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited are related persons, therefore, the goods cleared to the related persons are to be assessed under the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
3. The contention of the appellant is that they are having three manufacturing Units. The dispute regarding valuation of goods manufactured at Bangalore Unit and cleared to their holding Company attained finality. The Tribunal in the case of Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, held that the goods manufactured and cleared to holding company are to be assessed at the same price on which the same goods are cleared to independent buyer; and this view is affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. A182 (S.C.). The dispute in respect of the goods manufactured at Hyderabad Unit is also settled by the Tribunal in the case of Aquamall Water solutions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-II, reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T. 96 (Tr. Bang.) and appeal filed against this decisions is also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The contention is that as the price at which the goods are being cleared to independent buyer is available, therefore, the goods cleared to then holding company are to be assessee at the same price and if this principle is followed they are liable to pay the duty of Rs. 17 lakhs.
5. The contention is also that appellant vide letter dated 23.1 2.2004 submitted that the copies of sale invoice supporting payment receipt/details of payment to the Revenue and in spite of this adjudication authority held that appellant had not produced any evidence, regarding proof of payment for sales to independent buyers. The contention is that the detach regarding sale to the independent buyer is produced. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, the sale price to the independent buyers is to be taken into consideration while assessee goods cleared to their holding company.
6. The contention of the Revenue is that appellant had not produced evidence regarding the sales to the independent buyers. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly assessed the goods cleared to the holding company after invoking the provisions of Rules 9 and 10 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
7. We find that the appellants are clearing the goods to the independent buyers in addition to the clearance to their holding company. The appellant vide letter dated 23.12.2004 submitted copies sales invoices and copies of payment receipts in support of their claim. In spite of this, the adjudicating authority held that no proof of payment for sale to the independent buyers is submitted by the applicant. In this circumstance as appellant produced the necessary evidence in support of their claim, which is not considered by the adjudicating authority. It is a fit case for reconsideration by the adjudication authority. As appellant admitted that duty liability comes to approximately Rs. 17 lakhs if the goods are assessed at the price at which are cleared to the independent buyers, therefore, the appellants are directed to deposit an amount, of Rs. 17 lakhs. As we are of the view that it is fit case for reconsideration, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants subject to the conditions that appellant will deposit an amount of Rs. 17 lakhs. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.