9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 506 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - valuation - bearing rings - job-work - additional consideration received on account of conversion charges in the form of scrap value paid to job workers in addition to job charges not included - whether appellant has undervalued the bearing rings manufactured by them and cleared to SKF Ltd. or otherwise? - Held that - we perused the purchase order placed by SKF on TISCO and the invoices raised by appellant and find that appellant has discharged the applicable central excise duty on the value on which TISCO sells the goods to SKF. If it is so, then in our view, appellant cannot be saddled with additional duty liability - reliance placed on the decision of the case Surindra Steel Rolling Mills vs. CCE 2003 (1) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI where it was held that it is a case where the assessable value included all the costs and profit up to the sale of the goods i.e. the profit of the merchant (SAIL) and not merely the cost of the materials and the cost of conversion by the appellant job workers and their profit. The assessable value adopted by the appellants could only be in excess of assessable value liable to be adopted by the appellants. There could be no arguing that, by adopting the sale price of SAIL, the appellants under valued the goods and paid less duty than was due. Demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant has undervalued the bearing rings manufactured and cleared to SKF Ltd. 2. Inclusion of additional costs in the assessable value. 3. Adjustment of duty paid on scrap. 4. Invocation of the extended period of limitation. 5. Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. Undervaluation of Bearing Rings: The primary issue was whether the appellant had undervalued the bearing rings manufactured and cleared to SKF Ltd. The appellant argued that the clearance of goods was effected at TISCO's sale prices to SKF Ltd., which included all costs and profits, thus negating any undervaluation. The Tribunal found that the appellant had discharged central excise duty on the value at which TISCO sold the goods to SKF Ltd., and hence, there could be no short levy or undervaluation. This conclusion was supported by precedents such as *Surindra Steel Rolling Mills vs. CCE* and *CCE vs. Tirupati Weaves Pvt. Ltd.* 2. Inclusion of Additional Costs: The Revenue contended that additional amounts received by the appellant, such as transportation, godown rent, and value of scrap retained, should be included in the assessable value. The appellant countered that all charges, including magnetic particle inspection/testing charges and conversion charges, were already included in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that TISCO would have considered all costs in the sale price to SKF Ltd. and thus, no additional duty liability could be imposed on the appellant. 3. Adjustment of Duty Paid on Scrap: The appellant argued that the duty paid on scrap generated during the machining process should be adjusted against the purported duty demand. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had paid a significant amount of duty on the scrap and that this amount should be adjusted against the confirmed duty demand, reducing the appellant's liability. 4. Extended Period of Limitation: The appellant contended that the duty demand for the period from 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2003 was barred by limitation, as the show cause notices were issued beyond the prescribed one-year period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that there was no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation in the given circumstances. 5. Imposition of Penalties: The Tribunal examined the penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that the penalties were untenable as there was no clear contravention disclosed in the show cause notices or the impugned order. The Tribunal agreed, citing decisions such as *Amrit Foods vs. CCE* and *Raymond Apparel Ltd. vs. CCE*, and concluded that the penalties were unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and demands, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized that the assessable value should include all costs and profits up to the sale of goods and that additional duty liabilities could not be imposed if the appellant had already discharged the appropriate duty based on TISCO's sale price to SKF Ltd. The Tribunal also underscored the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period and the necessity of clear contraventions for imposing penalties.
|
