2015 (10) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Determination of assessable value - Revenue contends that assessable value of gear box ought to be determined under Sec. 4(1)(b) of CEA,1944 read with Rule 10 (a) and with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - Appellant has placed the opinion of M/s. Mani & Co., the Cost Accountant, in their support. It is also contended that on reference of the said opinion to A.D. (Cost), by the Department, more or less the said opinion was accepted. Countering the argument of the Revenue, the Ld. advocate for the applicant categorically submits that they have not incurred any packing cost in transferring the finished goods from the applicant company to the holding company. Needless to emphasize, the includibility or otherwise of these elements of cost also rests on appreciation of evidences. In these premises, all these aspects need to be scrutinized in detail which would be possible at the time of disposal of the appeal. At this stage, in our view, the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Accordingly, all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 based on the methodology for determination of assessable value of goods and inclusion of certain elements of cost like quality control, packaging cost, and administrative heads.

Analysis:

The case involved an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 2.14 Crores and an equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants, engaged in the manufacture of H.V. Gear Box, had cleared goods to their holding company, M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., between April 2000 to March 2001 by discharging duty on the transaction value as per Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. However, based on audit objections, the department alleged that the clearances were not on a principal to principal basis, leading to a demand for differential duty. The applicants contested this, arguing that the methodology used by the department did not consider certain elements of cost like quality control, packing cost, and administrative heads, which were included on a notional basis and not in accordance with the costing method accepted by the Revenue as CAS-4. They provided a certificate from a Cost Accountant supporting their method, which was also accepted by the Assistant Director (Cost). The dispute primarily revolved around the determination of the assessable value of the gear box and the inclusion of various cost elements in the calculation.

The Revenue, represented by the Appraiser, contended that the appellant's arguments lacked evidence to support their claims, particularly regarding expenses like packing cost. The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's contentions, leading to the appeal. During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments, with the Revenue reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the dispute not only concerned the methodology for determining the value under different sections of the Act but also the principles applied in calculating the cost of the product. The bone of contention was the inclusion of elements like quality control, packaging cost, and administrative heads in the cost of the finished product. The appellant relied on the opinion of the Cost Accountant and emphasized that they did not incur packing costs in transferring goods to the holding company. The Tribunal acknowledged that a detailed scrutiny of these aspects was necessary, which would be done during the disposal of the appeal. Considering the prima facie case made by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal granted the waiver and stayed the recovery of all dues adjudged during the pendency of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the dispute regarding the methodology for determining the assessable value of goods and the inclusion of specific cost elements in the calculation. The Tribunal recognized the need for a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, leading to the grant of a waiver of pre-deposit and a stay on recovery pending the appeal process.