2015 (5) TMI 627 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation - Captive consumption - price shown for various models of VIT cleared for captive consumption of the appellant s own unit at Nasik is much lesser than the price at which the appellant had been selling such products to the other parties - Held that - In the chart the quantity which was cleared by the appellant for its Nasik unit for the year 1997 is shown in tabulated form in respect of second and fourth model. Insofar as VIT model WL-34599 C-I is concerned, we find that the goods which were cleared by the appellant for its Nasik unit show the value between ₹ 10,700/- to ₹ 13,000/- at different periods. However, the Assessing Authority has fixed the value at ₹ 22,650/- only on the ground that one party, viz., M/s. Ovac Switchgear this very product was supplied at that rate - it was only one unit which was supplied to the said period. In comparison there are sales made to another party, viz., Beicco Lawrie and the price charged from the said party is ₹ 12,500/- during 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and ₹ 11,400/- for the year 2000-2001. This is almost comparable price at which the goods were cleared for its Nasik unit. Therefore, in respect of this model the goods which were cleared by the appellant for its Nasik unit should have been accepted and the price could not have been fixed at ₹ 22,650/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Central excise duty valuation for goods cleared for captive consumption at own unit, application of Central Excise Valuation Rules, consideration of negotiated price for related party transactions, challenge to valuation methodology before Tribunal.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the central excise duty valuation of Vacuum Interrupter Tubes (VIT) cleared for captive consumption at the appellant's own unit in Nasik. The Revenue alleged that the prices declared for goods cleared for the Nasik unit were lower than those sold to third parties, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant contended that the prices were negotiated and at arm's length, even for related party transactions. However, the Assessing Officer rejected this plea, citing Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, treating Nasik unit as a related party. The valuation was done using Central Excise Valuation Rules, considering comparable prices for identical and similar goods, and using Rule 6(b)(ii) for other goods.

The appellant appealed the Assessing Officer's decision to the Tribunal, reiterating that the goods cleared for Nasik unit were at negotiated prices and should have been accepted even for related parties. The Tribunal thoroughly analyzed this contention and provided valid reasons for rejecting it, upholding the Assessing Officer's valuation methodology. The appellant further argued that considering only the highest comparable price, especially for one-off sales, was not justified. They presented a chart showing different prices for VIT models, highlighting discrepancies in the valuation.

Upon reviewing the chart, the Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the valuation of a specific VIT model, WL-34599 C-I. The Assessing Authority had fixed the value at a higher rate based on a single sale to a specific party, despite comparable prices charged to another party for the same product. The Court agreed that the price for Nasik unit clearance should have been accepted, and the valuation for this model was adjusted accordingly. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal by modifying the valuation for the specific VIT model while maintaining the rest of the Tribunal's order and the Assessing Authority's decision.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the application of Central Excise Valuation Rules, the consideration of negotiated prices for related party transactions, and the need for a comprehensive valuation methodology that accounts for comparable prices in determining central excise duty for goods cleared for captive consumption.