2017 (2) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - clearance to sister unit - the clearance of the said goods was made considering the value of the semi-finished goods - The department s contention is that the goods cleared to their sister concern is fully finished goods. Therefore the valuation should be done u/r 6(c)(iii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and after 01.07.2000 under Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Held that - the record maintained by the appellant i.e. route card clearly shows that the process such as drilling, reeling, broaching etc. were not carried out by the Pune unit therefore the said process were carried out by their Garauli unit - it is established that the goods cleared by the appellant to their Garauli unit was not fully finished. Therefore, the valuation could not have been done under Rule 6(c)(iii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and/or Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods under Central Excise rules, classification of goods as finished or semi-finished, reliance on director's statement, availability of modvat credit, suppression of facts, revenue neutrality in transactions.

In this case, the main issue revolved around the valuation of goods under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, specifically whether the goods cleared by the appellant to their sister concern were fully finished goods. The department contended that the goods were fully finished and should be valued accordingly, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant argued that the goods were not fully finished as certain processes were yet to be carried out, as evidenced by the route card, and that the sister concern also paid duty on the same goods after further processing, making the demand unsustainable.

The appellant further contended that there was no suppression of facts as the duty was paid by the sister concern and modvat credit was available. They relied on the principle of revenue neutrality in transactions, citing a relevant judgment. The revenue, on the other hand, relied on a confessional statement by the director of the appellant company to support their claim that the goods were fully finished. They cited various judgments to strengthen their argument.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the goods cleared were not fully finished, as evidenced by the appellant's maintained records showing pending processes. The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence should prevail over statements, leading to the conclusion that valuation under the Central Excise rules was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that the goods were exclusively meant for a specific use and duty was ultimately paid by the sister concern, supporting the concept of revenue neutrality. Consequently, the demand for differential duty was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.