2015 (11) TMI 1581 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - intermediate products manufactured and consumed further by the respondent-assessee - short-discharge of duty due to improper application of Rules and not arrived at the correct assessable value based upon CAS-4 for the period April - May, 2002 - Demand - Held that - it is found that on the very same issue, this bench has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, by applying the same finding, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for following the directions of this Tribunal and arrive at the duty liability for the period in question in this appeal. Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - it is found that the bench in the very same judgment has held that in case, respondent-assessee fails to produce details as per CAS-4, short-levy as proposed in the show cause notice will stand confirmed. No penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 173Q/Rule 25 will be impossable. Therefore, since the bench in identical issue has directed not to impose penalties the very same order will be applicable in this case also. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority, after arriving at the short-duty paid by the assessee, if any, will confirm the same along with interest as per the directions of the Tribunal s order. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues involved: Valuation of intermediate products for duty calculation, imposition of penalty, demand of interest.

Valuation of intermediate products: The appeal involves a dispute over the valuation of intermediate products manufactured and consumed by the respondent-assessee. The Revenue authorities alleged a short-discharge of duty due to incorrect application of rules and valuation methods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands without imposing penalties or demanding interest. The respondent-assessee contested the demand confirmation. The Tribunal noted that for the period post-July 2000, the value should be computed as per CAS-4. The bench remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to determine the duty liability based on CAS-4 for the relevant period. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of producing CAS-4 documents for assessment and directed the Commissioner to seek assistance from the Cost Accountant if necessary.

Imposition of penalty: The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment where it was held that penalties under Section 11AC/Rule 173Q/Rule 25 should not be imposed if the respondent fails to produce details as per CAS-4, resulting in short-levy. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to confirm any short-duty paid by the assessee, if applicable, along with interest as per the Tribunal's directions. Therefore, penalties were not imposed in this case based on the earlier ruling.

Demand of interest: The Tribunal's decision did not specifically address the demand of interest in this case. However, it was mentioned that interest would be applicable on any confirmed short-duty paid by the assessee as per the Tribunal's directions. The focus was primarily on the valuation of intermediate products and the imposition of penalties, with interest being a consequential aspect of any confirmed short-duty liability. The appeal and cross-objection were disposed of based on the Tribunal's findings and directions regarding valuation and penalty imposition.