ACME CERAMICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals raise a common question of valuation of final products cleared by the appellant, hence are being disposed of by a common order. 1.1 The period of dispute involved in each appeal is as under : - Appeal NoPeriod of Dispute E/46 -47/20121 -1 -2005 to 31 -3 -2009 E/103 -104/2012April, 2005 to March, 2008 E/159 -162/20121 -7 -2007 to 31 -3 -2008 E/12074/20132004 -2005 to 2007 -2008 E/12075/20132004 -2005 to 2007 -2008 E/1153/20111 -4 -2004 to 28 -2 -2008

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts in all the appeals herein are that the appellant herein are manufacturer of ceramic tiles. The office of DGCEI collected intelligence that the manufacturer of ceramic glazed tiles and vitrified tiles were engaged in large scale evasion of Central Excise duty by not declaring the actual MRP on their product and Central Excise invoices. It was also gathered by the DGCEI that the manufacturers were declaring only part of the actual MRP and consequently evading the payment of Central Excise duty and in fact misdeclared the actual ex -factory price of such tiles and recovered the same from their dealer in cash and did not account the same in statutory records. Based upon such intelligence, the officers of DGCEI visited all the tile manufacturers in their area and undertook the investigation. After conducting detailed investigation and recording statements of various manufacturers, dealers, and other persons, show cause notices were issued to all assessees/appellants directing them to show cause as to why the value declared by them on ceramic glazed tiles and vitrified tiles be not rejected and redetermined based upon the intelligence collected and differential duty be not demanded, demand interest thereof and also seeking to impose penalty on the main assessee as well as their employees/partners. All the appellants herein contested the show cause notice on merits and also on various other grounds and filed reply stating that there is no evasion of Central Excise duty on their part. The adjudicating authority in all these appeals, after following the due process of law, came to a conclusion that all the appellants herein have undervalued the product i.e. ceramic glazed tiles and vitrified tiles during the material period (relevant period against each appeal is indicated in Paragraph 1) and confirmed the demand, demanded interest and also imposed penalties. To come to such conclusion, the adjudicating authority relied upon the evidences in the form of statements of dealers, shroff/angadias that there was additional consideration flowing back to the manufacturer from the dealer/buyers and also relied upon the subsequent development of increase in the MRP by the manufacturers; as also relied upon the evidence in the form of printed price lists which were recovered from the premises of the dealers of the tile manufacturers; and has also worked out the differential duty based upon the weighted average price of the tiles and applied the same for entire period. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are before the Tribunal.

(3.) SHRI V.K. Jain, Shri P.M. Dave, Shri Vishal Agarwal, Shri P.D. Rachchh, Shri P.V. Sheth, Ms. Dimple Gohil - Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri P.R.V. Raman, Special Counsel appointed by the Revenue and Shri K. Sivakumar, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appeared on behalf of the Revenue.