2016 (2) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Royalty to be included in assessable value - Held that - As observed that the appellant have not produced evidence for payment of royalty to M/s Rohne-Poulenc Agrochemicals (India) Ltd., which needs to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, it was held that the royalty is deductible and is not to be included in the assessable value if the appellant have paid royalty to M/s Rohne-Poulenc Agrochemicals (India) Ltd. And matter was remanded for verification of such payment to the adjudicating authority. Charging of duty on freight component recovered by debit note, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. (2003 (4) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the appellant. So far the issue of excess finished goods found, we find that the same is insignificant being less than 2% of the total stock available and further there is no allegation of finding of any clandestine removal or activity on the part of the appellant. Moreover the stock of the day was taken on estimate basis. - Decided in favour of the appellant.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess stock and duty liability on shortages found during inspection.
2. Recovery of additional amount through debit notes and inclusion in assessable value.
3. Duty liability on freight component and excess stock valuation.
4. Consideration of royalty payments to another company in assessable value.
5. Applicability of limitation period for invoking extended period.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of pesticides, appealed against an Order-in-Appeal regarding excess stock and shortages found during an inspection. The stock discrepancies included excess finished goods and shortages in semi-finished goods and raw materials. The appellant contested the show-cause notice, but the Order-in-Original upheld confiscation of excess stock, duty on shortages, and duty on raw material shortages. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the decision.

2. The show-cause notice also addressed the recovery of an additional amount through debit notes from buyers, which the Revenue considered as part of the assessable value. The appellant argued against this, stating that the amount collected was for royalty and freight. The Order-in-Original confirmed the duty liability on the additional amount collected through debit notes, imposing penalties and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

3. The issue of duty liability on the freight component and excess stock valuation was contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that freight expenses from factory to depot should not be included in the assessable value based on legal precedents. The Tribunal, considering Supreme Court rulings, decided in favor of the appellant on this issue, setting aside the impugned order.

4. Regarding royalty payments to another company, the Tribunal noted that evidence of payment to the company was not produced by the appellant. The Tribunal held that if royalty payments were made, they should be deductible from the assessable value. The matter was remanded for verification of royalty payments.

5. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the limitation period for invoking the extended period due to the discovery of additional recovery through debit notes. The Tribunal found that the extended period was rightly invoked based on the facts discovered during inspection.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the issues of duty on freight component and excess stock valuation, setting aside the impugned order. The matter of royalty payments was remanded for verification, and the extended period for invoking the limitation was upheld.

← Previous Next →