2016 (1) TMI 1131 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - yarn falling under Heading Nos. 5203, 5204, 5504 and 5506 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - captive consumption - comparable value - assessable value in terms of Rule 6(b)(1) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules - whether the yarn to be valued at comparable value or the assessable value after claiming deductions? - Held that - the decision in the case of assessee s own case 2015 (3) TMI 1044 - SUPREME COURT apply where it was held that the appellant shall be entitle to adjust the cost which is incurred and mentioned in process (v) and (vi) of the sales in selling cost. Since this benefit is wrongly denied to the appellant by all the authorities below, the case remanded back to the adjudicating authority Matter on remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a denovo adjudication order within a period of 3 months after granting opportunity of personal hearing - permission granted to submit additional information to form basis for recalculation of the duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Valuation of captively consumed goods for duty payment under Central Excise Rules
- Applicability of deductions claimed by the appellant
- Consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in a similar case

Valuation of captively consumed goods:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various types of yarn, faced a dispute with the department regarding the valuation of goods captively consumed. The department argued for valuing captively consumed goods based on the comparable value of goods sold in the market. The appellant, however, claimed certain deductions to arrive at the assessable value as per Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The adjudication process did not allow the deductions, deciding instead to base the case on the value of comparable goods sold in the market.

Applicability of deductions:
The appellant's representatives, citing a previous Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, argued for the adjustment of costs incurred in the sales process. They contended that the benefit of adjusting costs, as allowed by the Supreme Court, had been wrongly denied to the appellant by all lower authorities. Consequently, they requested a remand of the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the principle of allowing adjustments based on data presented by the appellant.

Consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment:
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the appellant's previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to pass a denovo adjudication order within three months. The authority was instructed to consider the Supreme Court judgment, grant a personal hearing, allow the submission of additional information, and recalculate the duty based on the new information provided.