2011 (7) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Classification - The fact is that such patterns were manufactured by the other manufacturers and the appellant has only paid for the same and subsequently the cost was reimbursed by their buyers - it is well settled law that the value of such moulds and dies is required to be added in the assessable value of the final product on pro-rata basis - It is also not very clear as to whether the demand stands raised and confirmed on the total value of the patterns or by adding the cost of the same in the final product on pro-rata basis - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of patterns/moulds/dies in the manufacturing process.
2. Inclusion of the cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of the final product.
3. Lack of clarity regarding the demand raised and confirmed.
4. Consideration of limitation aspect in the case.

Analysis:

Valuation of patterns/moulds/dies:
The case involved a manufacturing unit engaged in the production of casting iron and S.G.I. Castings. The appellants obtained moulds and dies from other manufacturers, which were necessary for their manufacturing process. The demand in question related to these patterns/moulds/dies, with the revenue treating them as if they were manufactured by the appellants themselves. However, the Tribunal found that the patterns were actually manufactured by other entities, and the appellants only reimbursed the cost to their buyers. Consequently, the demand raised on the value of the patterns was deemed unjustified.

Inclusion of cost in assessable value:
While acknowledging that the cost of moulds and dies should be added to the assessable value of the final product on a pro-rata basis, the Tribunal noted that this aspect had not been adequately addressed by the lower authorities. It was unclear whether the demand was based on the total value of the patterns or on a pro-rata basis. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of this issue, along with consideration of the limitation aspect.

Clarity on the demand and limitation aspect:
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not sufficiently considered the inclusion of the cost of dies and moulds in the final product on a pro-rata basis. Additionally, the limitation aspect had not been adequately addressed, particularly in relation to the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the appellants' argument that the revenue had not picked up the figures of sale of patterns from the balance sheet, indicating a lack of malafide intent on the part of the appellants.

Decision and Remand:
Considering the above factors, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The authority was instructed to verify the inclusion of the cost of dies and moulds in the final product on a pro-rata basis and to address the issue of limitation comprehensively, taking into account all relevant facts. The appellants were granted the liberty to rely on precedent decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for further examination and clarification on the issues raised.