2015 (3) TMI 1096 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Determination of assessable value of clearance beyond Rs.one crore during the financial year 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Held that - Issue involved in this case stands decided in the appellant s favour by the earlier judgement of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case reported in 1998 (6) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI wherein an identical issue was involved and the Tribunal held that though in respect of clearance beyond ₹ 75 lakh in a financial year, the appellant were liable to pay duty at the rate of 30% adv., while their duty reimbursement from UPCL was restricted to only 20%., the duty which is actually payable has to be deducted in arriving at the assessable value. This decision has been followed in two more final orders in the appellant s own case. Following the above orders of the Tribunal, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over assessable value of clearance beyond exemption limit during financial years 2001-02 and 2002-03.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of ACSR conductors and AAAC Weasel conductors, availed SSI exemption No.9/01-CE, paying duty at 9.6% up to Rs. one crore and 16% beyond that with input credit. They entered a contract with UP Power Corporation Ltd., reimbursed at 9.6%. The dispute arose when the appellant treated total price from UPCL as including duty at 16% for clearances beyond Rs. one crore in 2001-02 and 2002-03, abating duty accordingly. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,34,145 with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

The appellant argued that assessable value post-exemption limit should abate duty at 16% as paid, citing relevant case laws and previous Tribunal judgments. The department contended that duty abatement should align with the reimbursement rate of 9.6%. The Tribunal noted its earlier judgment in the appellant's case, where it held that the duty actually payable should be deducted to determine assessable value, even if the duty rate exceeded the reimbursement rate. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal's decision rested on the principle that the duty actually payable must be considered in calculating the assessable value, irrespective of the reimbursement rate. By aligning with past judgments in the appellant's favor, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing consistency with prior rulings and legal interpretations.