2017 (2) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - composite contract - project work of supply, erection, installation and commissioning of lifts at the customer site - Against the total value of the composite contract the appellant received advance payment, whether the addition of notional interest on advance amount is includible in the assessable value? - Held that - the supply portion in the over all project which represent the clearance of assessee s manufactured goods is less than 50% of the over all value of the project cost. Therefore for this reason interest is not prima facie includible in the assessable value - in the appellant s own case Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV Vs. Otis Elevator Co. (I) Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI it was held that interest on advances cannot be included in the assessable value. It prima facie appears that interest in not includible in the assessable value however, since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed the final order, at this stage, we cannot dispose of the matter finally - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Inclusion of notional interest on advances in the assessable value of goods manufactured and supplied by the appellant.
2. Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of notional interest on advances
The case involved the appellant manufacturing and clearing parts and accessories of lifts for turnkey projects. The department contended that the notional interest of advance payments should be added to the value of goods manufactured, resulting in a demand for differential duty. The appellant argued that as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, only 110% of the cost of manufacturing can be considered for valuation, excluding notional profit or interest. The appellant cited precedents to support their stance, emphasizing that interest on advances cannot be added to the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the supply portion of the project represented by the appellant's manufactured goods was less than 50% of the overall project cost, making the inclusion of interest not prima facie justifiable. Referring to a previous judgment in the appellant's case, the Tribunal concluded that interest should not be included in the assessable value. However, since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not issued a final order, the matter was remanded for final disposal based on the Tribunal's observations.

Issue 2: Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter
The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority instead of issuing a final order. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for finality in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision-making process. Despite finding merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the inclusion of notional interest, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a final decision in light of their observations. This remand was deemed necessary to ensure proper adjudication and resolution of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a final decision, emphasizing the exclusion of notional interest on advances from the assessable value of goods manufactured and supplied by the appellant.