2015 (7) TMI 892 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation - Captive consumption - Whether the provision of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 are applicable to the case at hand or not - Held that - Under clause (i) of Rule 6(b), the value is to be based on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or any other assessee. Since there was no such commodity or material available to show the value of any chargeable goods, the case was covered under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 6(b). That is, thus, the only provision under which the value could be determined. The only statement of the appellant is that since it was incurring losses in the production of yarn in the previous year it did not include any notional profit while dealing with price of goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) by the Department. That cannot be accepted inasmuch as sub-clause (ii) of Rule 6(b) does not deal with the situation where profits should be actually earned which is clear from the language which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods . Thus, the notional profits could be taken into consideration and added while arriving at the value of captive material. This is exactly the exercise that was undertaken by the Department and has been upheld by the CESTAT. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applied to the case at hand. The appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture of various products falling under Central Excise tariff headings, had been captively using certain counts of yarn in the production of unprocessed fabrics exempt from duty payment. The excise department valued the captive yarn using Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. This rule states that when excisable goods are not sold but consumed in production, the value should be based on the cost of production or manufacture, including notional profits that the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. The appellant argued that since they incurred losses in the previous year, notional profits should not be considered. However, the Court held that Rule 6(b)(ii) does not require actual profits to be earned, but rather considers notional profits that could have been earned. The Department added a ten percent notional profit, deemed reasonable by the CESTAT, and upheld the valuation. The Court found no error in the CESTAT's decision and dismissed the appeals, concluding that they lacked merit.