2010 (5) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Finalization of provisional assessment of zinc cans and offcut/scrap, determination of assessable value, differential duty demand, interpretation of cost of production, applicability of CAS-4, appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved the finalization of provisional assessment of zinc cans, zinc offcut/scrap, etc., stock-transferred by the manufacturers of electric dry cell batteries from one factory to another. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the adoption of the cost of production of inputs as the cost for inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate goods, leading to a differential duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, citing the definite connotation of the term 'cost' as distinguished from 'value' as per the apex court's judgment in Hindustan Polymer. The appeal by the Revenue challenged this decision.

Regarding the determination of assessable value, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the Cost Accountant certificate filed by the assessees, certifying the cost of material in accordance with CAS-4. The certificate detailed the cost of production, corporate overheads, and notional deemed profit for various products manufactured and transferred between plants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following CAS-4 for computing the assessable value of goods captively consumed, as per Government of India Circular No. 692/8/2003 Cx.

In interpreting the cost of production, the Tribunal referred to the case law and principles governing captive consumption. It was observed that the actual cost of production, along with notional profit, should be considered. The assessees' adherence to the method prescribed in CAS-4 for determining the cost of material was upheld, as it was not contested by the Revenue. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, with the cross-objection dismissed as well.

This judgment highlights the significance of following cost accounting standards, specifically CAS-4, in determining the assessable value of goods captively consumed. The decision underscores the importance of considering actual production costs and notional profit in cases of captive consumption, as established by legal precedents and industry practices.