Pranav B Prem

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has set aside an excise duty demand of approximately ₹18 crore raised against National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd., along with penalties imposed on two former senior executives, after holding that the Department had adopted a valuation methodology unsupported by law. The Tribunal ruled that depot price lists could not be treated as the basis for assessable value under the Central Excise Act when sale prices at depots varied with market conditions and the assessee consistently paid differential duty based on actual transactions.

Also Read: CESTAT Kolkata Rules No Service Tax On Joint Venture Income; Sets Aside ₹5.72 Crore Demand Against Rahee Infratech

A bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was hearing three connected appeals filed by the company and its former officers. National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of cold-rolled galvanized and colour-coated steel sheets and coils, sold goods both at the factory gate and through depots across India. While factory gate sales were assessed on transaction value, the dispute arose with respect to stock transfers to depots. Since the price at which depot sales occurred could not be predetermined, the goods were cleared on a provisional assessable value and differential duty was paid later wherever depot sale prices exceeded that value. The details of such payments were disclosed in monthly ER-1 returns.

The Department alleged undervaluation of depot transfers and issued six show cause notices covering the period from June 2009 to June 2017, contending that excise duty should have been paid on indicative depot price lists rather than on provisional assessable values. The Commissioner discarded the company’s valuation methodology and confirmed the demand invoking Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, despite the show cause notices having been issued under Rule 7. Penalties were also imposed on the company and two senior officers — the then GM (Marketing) Mukesh Sharma and the then EVP Nirmal Uday.

Also Read: CESTAT Upholds Declared FOB Value But Restores Penalty For Mis-Declaration of Fabric and Corrects Drawback/ROSCTL Benefits

The Tribunal held that depot price lists could not be equated with transaction value and observed that such price lists merely represented indicative rates and were incapable of reflecting real-time market conditions, negotiations, and commercial dynamics. It found that the company had regularly discharged differential duty exactly in the manner contemplated when depot sale prices exceeded factory clearances and that the Department had full knowledge of such payments because they were disclosed in statutory returns. The Tribunal recorded: “The valuation adopted by the Department on the basis of depot price lists has no legal foundation and cannot be sustained.”

The Tribunal further observed that the methodology employed by the company was actually more consistent with Rule 7, which requires determination of assessable value based on contemporaneous sale prices at depots. It held that valuation could not be carried out on the basis of depot price lists either under Rule 7 or Rule 11, and the Department’s approach suffered from a fundamental legal flaw.

On limitation, the Tribunal held that extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the company had repeatedly disclosed differential duty payments in ER-1 returns, demonstrating transparency and absence of any intent to evade. The Tribunal noted that excess payment of duty itself negated allegations of wilful suppression. It also pointed out that a part of the confirmed demand, from June to August 2009, was time-barred even on the assumption that extended limitation applied.

Also Read: CESTAT Mumbai: Revenue Cannot Treat Turnover Mismatch as Duty Evasion Without Examining Merits; Delay in Appeal Must Be Condoned

Finding that neither undervaluation nor suppression was established, and that penalties could not survive in the absence of a sustainable duty demand, the Tribunal quashed the entire demand of duty, interest and penalties. All three appeals filed by the company and its former officers were allowed.

Appearance

Counsel For  Appellant: Amit Jain, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: S.K. Ray, Authorized Representative

Cause Title: M/s. National Steel and Agro Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain

Case No: Excise Appeal No. 50600 Of 2019

Coram: Justice Dilip Gupta (President), P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member)