Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 540 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Valuation of 'Bone Meat Meal' cleared to DTA under Central Excise Act vs. Customs Act. Analysis: The case involves a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing 'Boneless Buffalo Meat' with 'Bone Meat Meal' as a byproduct cleared to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The dispute centers around the valuation of 'Bone Meat Meal' - whether under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act or Section 14 of the Customs Act. The appellant argues that the assessable value for DTA clearances should be determined under the Customs Act, not the Central Excise Act. Throughout the dispute, the appellant paid excise duty on DTA clearances under Notification No. 13/98-CE at 30% of the aggregate of Customs duties. They contend that duty on DTA clearances for EOUs should be calculated as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, referencing the Customs Act for valuation. The appellant asserts that only the Customs Act and Valuation Rules should apply, not the Central Excise Act and Valuation Rules. The respondent argues that as the goods were manufactured from indigenous raw materials, provisions of exemption Notifications No. 8/97-C.E. and 23/2003-C.E. apply, making Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Central Excise Valuation Rules relevant. The respondent emphasizes that the assessable value should be based on the price at which the related person sells the goods to independent buyers. The Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, noting that duty on DTA clearances is paid under Notification 13/98-CE at 30% of Customs duties, requiring valuation as per the Customs Act when duty is ad valorem. The Tribunal emphasizes that the exemption Notifications cannot impose Central Excise Act provisions, thus determining the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the duty deposit and penalty are waived, and recovery is stayed, favoring the appellants.
|