Page 235 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR 281

parent from the contract, are ‘ex-stock’. It is also submitted that the appellant had
imported a much higher quantity than the meagre quantity procured by M/s.
Mazgaon Dock Ltd.
8. It is also seen from the record that imports of others, cited in the or-
der-in-original, were at much higher price than that of M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd.
Undoubtedly, the price of import by M/s. Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. is far
lower than the price declared by M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd. on contemporaneous
import from the same supplier. However, the circumstances in which M/s.
Mazgaon Dock Ltd. entered into the contract with the supplier and the scope for
flexibility arising from the declining of price of steel which may have impacted
the contract entered into by the appellant herein almost a year latter has not been
considered. Furthermore, it is also on record that imports effected by others
about three to four months before the impugned goods were at higher prices
than even that at which M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Mere reference to the financial
mandate of contract, or enumeration of the contemporaneous prices, does not
excuse the assessing officer from the obligation to ascertain acceptability of the
claim of reduction in steel price being discernible even within the period of con-
temporaneous imports.
9. In view of the above, we find ourselves unable to accept the logic
adopted by the first appellate authority in the impugned order. We are unable to
satisfy ourselves that the imports by M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd. could be desig-
nated as ‘similar’ merely because of being contemporaneous. From the records of
the original authority, we perceive a trend of fall in price during the said period.
It would also appear that no efforts have been made by the assessing officer to
ascertain the manner in which the alleged undervaluation would have been
compensated to such extent as to warrant adoption of a value that was almost
double that of the declared value. Such excess undervaluation, as alleged, should
have been subject to serious investigation and appropriate penalties imposed if
found to be so. In the absence of such, we can only deduce that the exercise of
enhancement of value so undertaken was without sufficient evidence on hand.
10. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow
the appeal.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 13-9-2019)
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 281 (Tri. - All.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR
Final Order Nos. A/71865-71868/2019-EX[DB], dated 23-9-2019 in Appeal Nos.
E/347-350/2007
Power, use of - Exemption - Manufacture of laundry soap with aid of
gas - Issue arising for consideration is whether in manufacture of ‘laundry
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  251