2012 (12) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of wast and scrap - cost 15% - CAS 4 - Rules 8 and 9 - Respondent cleared to other units of theirs - waste and scrap of cast iron generated in the course of manufacture of textile manufacture on payment of duty on assessable value of Rs.3/- per kg - Revenue demanding differential duty of Rs.1,35,718/- and interest thereon and also proposing a penalty as respondent should have paid duty on assessable value estimated at 115% of the cost of production of the goods - held that - As respondent has paid an amount of Rs.1,59,900/- as differential duty on the waste and scrap in question after the impugned order was passed - respondent further submits thus without verifying any of these facts the department now has gone on appeal demanding a lower amount than what is accepted by the appellants - no valuation issue survives for a decision on the particular facts of this case - appeal is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of waste and scrap for duty payment under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a demand of duty on waste and scrap of cast iron cleared by the respondent to other units during a specific period. The Department contended that duty should have been paid on an assessable value estimated at 115% of the cost of production of the goods under relevant rules. A show-cause notice was issued demanding differential duty, interest, and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original, leading to the Department's appeal. The central issue was the applicability of CAS-4 guidelines invoked by the appellate Commissioner to the period in dispute.

Upon hearing both parties, it was noted that the respondent had already paid a differential duty amounting to Rs.1,59,900 after the impugned order. The respondent, without contesting the valuation issue, stated they did not intend to claim a refund of the duty paid. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found that the valuation issue was no longer relevant in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objections were disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the respondent had already paid the differential duty amount, rendering the valuation issue moot. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the cross-objections were disposed of. The judgment highlights the importance of timely payment of duties and the impact it can have on the resolution of valuation disputes in excise matters.