2008 (12) TMI 586 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of whether royalty charges should be included at the bulk stage for excise duty calculation.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, the appellants manufactured horlicks at their factory and paid duty based on cost construction under Rule 8 of the C.E. valuation rules. The horlicks were then sent to packing stations for retail packaging, where duty was paid on MRP basis u/s 4A of the C.E. Act 1944. The dispute arose regarding the inclusion of royalty charges based on sales in the excise duty calculation at the bulk stage. The Revenue argued for inclusion, but the appellants contested this. The Tribunal found that the royalty charges based on sales were already included in the price for retail sales, making the entire exercise revenue neutral. The Tribunal allowed the appeals with consequential relief, disagreeing with the impugned orders.

The appellants argued that royalty charges are related only to sales and have already been included at the retail stage for duty payment u/s 4-A. They highlighted that in their packing units, the royalty charges were not included at the retail stage based on certain clarifications and practices. The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise authorities in certain locations had decided in favor of the appellants by following CAS-4. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision where CAS-4 principles were held applicable even for past cases. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

The learned advocate representing the appellants argued that including royalty charges at the production stage would be revenue neutral as the appellants could avail Cenvat credit. They relied on a decision in CCE v. Textile Corpn, Marathwada Ltd. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides and concluded that the royalty charges based on sales were already factored into the retail sales price, making the entire exercise revenue neutral. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.