2015 (3) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Duty demand under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 - Held that -Provision of Rule 8 will not get attracted. Following decision of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mangalore 2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty. Accordingly, we grant waiver of predeposit of duty along with interest and penalty and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeals - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
Manufacture of HDPE Bottles, application of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, interpretation of consumption by an assessee or on his behalf, comparison with previous Tribunal decisions, waiver of duty, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved a common issue concerning the manufacture of HDPE Bottles classifiable under a specific heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicants, who were job workers of a particular company, returned the manufactured bottles to the company after paying duty based on the cost of raw materials and conversion charges. The adjudicating authority demanded duty, interest, and penalty citing Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, which states the valuation of goods used for consumption in production or manufacture of other articles. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order considering the insertion of Rule 10A in the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving manufacturing on a job work basis and consumption by the assessee or on his behalf to determine the applicability of Rule 8 in the current scenario.

The Tribunal analyzed the situation where goods are used for consumption by the assessee or on his behalf for production or manufacture of other articles, emphasizing that the value should be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. It was highlighted that if the goods are not consumed by the assessee or on his behalf, Rule 8 would not apply. The Tribunal referred to a case where a similar situation was discussed, and it was concluded that Rule 8 would not be attracted if the goods were not consumed by the assessee or on his behalf. The Tribunal also noted that the decision had been upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court in a previous case.

Based on the analysis and considering the strong prima facie case made by the applicants, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the entire amount of duty, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal allowed the stay applications, thereby waiving the predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty and staying the recovery during the pendency of the appeals. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing clarity on the application of Rule 8 and the waiver of duty, interest, and penalty in the given circumstances.