2018 (12) TMI 1755 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Chloropyriphos 20 - Hamla - clearance of goods to independent buyers and to toll packers for further conversion - adoption of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules 2000 for computation of the additional duty correct or not - case of appellant is that the provisions of Rule 8 ibid cannot be applied for determination of the transaction value when the same were sold to the independent buyers - HELD THAT - By placing reliance upon the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Raigad 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT MUMBAI this Bench of the Tribunal has held that the method of valuation adopted by the appellant is correct. There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Central excise duty evasion through mis-declaration and suppression of assessable value.
2. Compliance with valuation provisions under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000.
3. Correct method of valuation for goods transferred between plants.
4. Application of Central Excise Valuation Rules in determining transaction value.
5. Appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, who was found to have evaded central excise duty by mis-declaration and suppressing the assessable value on stock transfers between its plants. Show cause proceedings resulted in a confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalties by the adjudication order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands, citing non-compliance with valuation provisions under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, and incorrect duty payment basis on selling price instead of 115% of production cost for stock transfers.

2. The appellant contended that the valuation method adopted by the department was unsustainable, as goods were sold to independent buyers and toll packers, with duty paid based on comparable sale prices. The appellant referenced a Tribunal order in their favor, stating that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 should not apply when goods were sold to independent buyers, as per the Central Excise Valuation Rules.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, referred to a previous order concerning the appellant and a Larger Bench judgment, establishing that the method of valuation adopted by the appellant was correct. The Tribunal highlighted that when goods were sold independently to unrelated buyers, the transaction value prevailed over Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the valuation based on transaction value for goods sold to independent buyers.

4. Based on the settled legal position and precedent, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the earlier decision and ruling in favor of the appellant based on the correct method of valuation established through legal interpretation and precedent.

5. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved issues of central excise duty evasion, compliance with valuation provisions, correct method of valuation for goods transferred between plants, and the application of Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents led to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of correctly interpreting and applying valuation rules in excise duty matters.

← Previous Next →