2017 (2) TMI 975 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Plastic/Polyester Films, Matallized Films, Polycoated Paper and Paper board printed with DD Board and Printing Cylinder etc - clearance of goods at different prices to sister concern - Held that - we find from these invoices which referred to the various categories of the Plastic/Polyester Films, Matallized Films, which itself established the films were not of one quality - Further the period is subsequent to July 2000 when the concept of transaction value was introduced and if the revenue is aggrieved with such adoption of such transaction value as assessable value, it is for the Revenue to produce the evidences to show that the differential value is being received by the appellants by way of some other consideration. Extended period of limitation - Held that - there is no suppression of fact on the part of the assessee and inasmuch as the entire situation was revenue neutral, longer period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value of different types of films cleared to sister concern under different values, documentary evidence to substantiate pricing differences, applicability of transaction value concept, eligibility for Cenvat Credit, invocation of longer period of limitation.

Assessable Value Dispute:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various films, disputed the assessable value of films cleared to their sister concern at different prices. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found discrepancies in pricing, rejecting the appellant's claim of different varieties based on weight basis transfers. The Tribunal noted that the invoices themselves indicated different categories of films, questioning the Commissioner's rejection due to lack of documentary evidence. Considering the introduction of transaction value concept post-July 2000, the Tribunal held that if the Revenue contested the transaction value, they must provide evidence of differential value received by the appellant.

Cenvat Credit Eligibility:
The Tribunal observed that the sister concern was entitled to Cenvat Credit, making the case revenue neutral. As the sister concern could utilize the credit for duty payment on final products, no suppression or misstatement allegations could be imposed on the appellant. Given the revenue-neutral scenario and absence of any suppression, the Tribunal concluded that the longer period of limitation was not applicable. The show cause notice issued in 2004 for the period 2000-2002 was set aside on grounds of limitation.

Judgment:
After detailed analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of documentary evidence in assessing the value of goods transferred to sister concerns, the applicability of transaction value principles, and the eligibility for Cenvat Credit in maintaining a revenue-neutral position. The judgment emphasized the need for the Revenue to substantiate claims of differential value and upheld the appellant's position based on the facts and legal principles presented.