2014 (2) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sale to related parties - Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that - Method of calculation adopted by the appellants is not proper way of calculation. We agree with the findings of learned Commissioner that under no circumstances, cost of production is less than Rs.8,25,955/- PMT. Differential duty arrived in earlier Original-in-Order and this Order-in-Original is the same - Method of calculation in these circumstances has to be based on monthly calculations as variations are very wide and average method cannot be adopted. On perusal of production and costing as given in the table in proceeding pass, it is evident that in some months production was very high and in some months, production recorded was too less. Considering overall circumstances, prima facie case is made by the Revenue - Conditional stay granted.

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of goods leading to evasion of Central Excise duty.
2. Alleged violation of Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules.
3. Applicability of Section 1(a) and Section 1(b) of the Act.
4. Discrepancies in goods sold to related persons compared to independent buyers.
5. Calculation of cost of production for valuation purposes.
6. Discrepancies in cost calculations and method used for valuation.

Undervaluation of Goods and Evasion of Central Excise Duty:
The case involved M/s Met Trade India Ltd. availing exemption under Notification No.56/2002-CE but allegedly undervaluing clearances of Tin Alloys, leading to short payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.1,43,33,544. The undervaluation was based on the assessable value of the goods not being determined correctly as per the Valuation Rules.

Alleged Violation of Valuation Rules:
The Noticee was accused of not following Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, which required the value of goods to be determined at 110% of the cost of production. By undervaluing the goods cleared to related persons, the Noticee was deemed to have evaded duty by not adhering to the prescribed valuation rules.

Applicability of Sections of the Act:
It was contended that the valuation of goods sold to related persons fell under Section 1(b) of the Act rather than Section 1(a), indicating a specific provision for such transactions. The Commissioner's observations highlighted the importance of correctly determining the assessable value based on the applicable sections of the Act.

Discrepancies in Goods Sold to Related Persons:
The investigation revealed that goods sold to related persons differed from those sold to independent buyers, indicating potential undervaluation and evasion of duty. The Noticee's admission of variations in specifications raised concerns about the proper valuation of goods.

Calculation of Cost of Production:
The case involved a detailed analysis of the cost of production of Tin Alloys, with the Noticee providing a Cost Accountant's certificate to determine the cost per MT. The assessable value was calculated based on the cost of production, highlighting the importance of accurate cost calculations for valuation purposes.

Discrepancies in Cost Calculations and Valuation Method:
The Tribunal examined the method used by the appellants to calculate the cost of production and found it to be improper. Discrepancies in the cost calculations, fluctuations in prices, and the method of averaging were scrutinized to determine the correct assessable value. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the need for accurate monthly calculations and rejecting the use of an average method.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs for hearing the appeal, with the remaining duty and penalty amount stayed pending further orders. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate valuation, adherence to Valuation Rules, and proper determination of assessable value to prevent duty evasion.

← Previous Next →