2018 (3) TMI 1681 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - job-work - section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944 - It is the claim of the appellant that the peculiar circumstances of the clearances effected from the factory have not been taken into account by the adjudicating authority - principes of natural justice. Held that - The leap from the applicability of section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944 to the disinclination in accepting the contention of the appellants for invoking of rule 11 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 lacks justification to accord validity to the conclusion that the incorrect provisions for valuation has been resorted to. The specific business model of the appellants does not appear to have weighed with the adjudicating authority. It was also necessary on the part of the adjudicating authority to ascertain the scope of job work in the context of the duty liability devolving and envisaged in Central Excise Act 1944 on the manufacturer. The matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to determine all the aspects - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Valuation for computation of central excise duties on clearances by a job worker, applicability of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, invocation of rule 11 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, evasion of central excise duties, clarity in findings of adjudicating authority, job work liability under Central Excise Act, 1944.

In this case, M/s Neepaz Tubes (P) Ltd and M/s Tata Steel Limited filed appeals against two orders-in-original demanding central excise duty and penalties. The main issue was the valuation for computing duties on clearances by M/s Neepaz Tubes (P) Ltd, considered a job worker of M/s Tata Steel Limited. The central excise authorities argued for compliance with section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. The appellants contended that valuation should follow rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2000, highlighting differing viewpoints and the Tribunal's decision in Ultra Lubricants (India) (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. The appellants claimed the adjudicating authority did not consider the peculiar circumstances of the clearances.

The Tribunal noted a lack of clarity in the adjudicating authority's findings regarding the valuation methodology. The authority's transition from section 4 applicability to rejecting the invocation of rule 11 lacked justification, overlooking the appellants' business model. The Tribunal emphasized the need to understand the scope of 'job work' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the duty liability on the manufacturer. Due to these deficiencies and considering the various decisions cited, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for the adjudicating authority to address all aspects, provide a fair hearing, and issue fresh orders on the alleged charges.

Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough assessment and proper consideration of all relevant factors in determining central excise duties in cases involving job workers and manufacturers under the Central Excise Act, 1944.