2013 (12) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Addition of notional interest - Value of the goods manufactured on job work basis Held that - The addition of the advance amount received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation in the hands of present appellant, who is only the job worker, cannot be said to be in accordance with the law - the amount was never received by the appellant and the Revenue has not shown that on account of receipt of said advance by M/s. INDAL the assessable value in the hands of present appellant gets depressed - for adding notional interest on advance received from the customers, Revenue has to establish that the assessable value get depressed on account of such receipt of advance Following Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. ISPL Industries Ltd. 2003 (4) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the test charges received by M/s. INDAL, from M/s. Powergrid Corporation of India, for conducting the special tests before delivery of the goods, cannot be said to have any relation with the manufacture Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the advance received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation should be added to the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the present appellant.
2. Whether the test charges received by M/s. INDAL have any relation to the manufacture of goods by the present appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of adding the advance received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation to the assessable value of goods manufactured by the present appellant. The appellant availed Cenvat credit and discharged duty on the assessable value based on the cost of raw material plus conversion charges. The Revenue contended that the advance should be added to the assessable value, resulting in demand confirmation and penalties. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's stand. It was established that the advance was not received by the present appellant, and there was no evidence that the assessable value would be depressed due to the advance. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that notional interest on advance can only be added if it affects the assessable value. As the advance was not received by the appellant and did not impact the value, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals.

2. The second issue pertains to the test charges received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation for conducting special tests before delivering the goods. The Tribunal analyzed the relationship of these charges with the manufacture of goods by the present appellant. It was concluded that the test charges had no bearing on the manufacturing process carried out by the appellant on a job work basis. Therefore, the Tribunal found that these charges could not be considered in the assessable value of the goods. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the issues of adding advance received by M/s. INDAL and test charges to the assessable value of goods manufactured by the present appellant. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting that the advance not received by the appellant and the test charges were irrelevant to the manufacturing process. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing both appeals.