9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 720 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - nature of transaction - pure sale purchase or Job work - whether the valuation adopted by SGSPL for discharging the Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured by them is correct or the Revenue is correct by demanding the duty on the value of the goods based upon the sale price of the goods in the market and to hold whether SGSPL is a job worker under the provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or otherwise - Held that - agreement which was entered by the SGSPL with Atlantic was prior to 01.04.2007. The said date is important as the provisions of Rule 10A came into existence from that date i.e. to say that the appellants were engaged in manufacturing and clearance of the product with the said atlalntic prior to introduction of said provisions on the very same terms and conditions. We also find on perusal of the agreement that the agreement indicate the sale and purchase of the goods from the said SGSPL to Atlantic and Petronas. he first distinction in the valuation of excisable goods required to be made is whether under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the transaction is one of sale or a case of manufacture of goods from inputs and goods supplied by principle manufacturer. In the later option, the manufacturer should get only the job charges for converting the inputs/goods but the predominant part of the inputs or goods is required to be supplied free of charge by the principle manufacturer to the job worker. Such supply of inputs/goods free of charge has not been established by the Revenue Valuation under Section 4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is sought to be discarded on the ground that the price is not the sole consideration in these cases. In our view, in situations where price is not sole consideration, it does not mean that invariably Department has to resort to the valuation under Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In our view, the conditions required for bringing the assessee under the provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 have not been properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority in this case - Following decision of Ravikiran Plastics Pvt.Ltd 2014 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the valuation adopted by SGSPL for discharging Central Excise duty is correct. 2. Whether SGSPL is a job worker under Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation. 4. Imposition of penalties and interest. Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Central Excise Duty: The primary issue was whether SGSPL correctly valued the goods for excise duty purposes. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,55,09,215/- on SGSPL, asserting that the goods were undervalued. The appellant contested this, arguing that transactions with Atlantic and Petronas were on a principal-to-principal basis, and the value declared was correct. The Tribunal found that SGSPL procured all raw materials, had its own plant, machinery, and personnel, and sold the finished products at mutually agreed prices, paying applicable VAT. The Tribunal held that the valuation under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was correct and that the adjudicating authority's reliance on Rule 10A was misplaced. 2. Job Worker Status under Rule 10A: The adjudicating authority considered SGSPL as a job worker under Rule 10A, which requires valuation based on the price at which the goods are sold in the market by the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that SGSPL was not merely processing goods on behalf of Atlantic and Petronas but was an independent manufacturer purchasing its own raw materials. The Tribunal emphasized that the agreements and transactions indicated a sale rather than a job work arrangement. The Tribunal cited previous judgments, including Ravikiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd., to support its view that Rule 10A did not apply as SGSPL was not receiving inputs predominantly free of charge from Atlantic or Petronas. 3. Extended Period of Limitation: The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether the extended period of limitation was applicable. The appellant argued that they had regularly filed returns and informed the Department about their activities, which were subject to audits. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the Department was aware of SGSPL's operations, and there was no suppression of facts. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable. 4. Imposition of Penalties and Interest: The adjudicating authority imposed various penalties and interest on SGSPL and its directors under Sections 11AC and 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal, having set aside the demand on the grounds of incorrect valuation and non-applicability of Rule 10A, also set aside the penalties and interest imposed. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that SGSPL's valuation method for excise duty was correct, and SGSPL was not a job worker under Rule 10A. The extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the penalties and interest imposed were unsustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
|
