2017 (2) TMI 1166 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Bromadiolone Cake - clearing in bulk quantity to their service division - valued as per Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 or not? - Held that - the goods supplied to service division and the goods sold in the market, there is clear distinction depending upon the packing. One product i.e. Bromadiolone Cake - 0.005% is in the same packing, therefore, the price of comparable goods is available. However, the respondent had admittedly paid the duty on the said product - the demand of duty paid on the product namely, Bromadiolone Cake-0.005% upheld. As regards other goods, since no comparable package of the goods which was supplied in the service division are available, therefore, the valuation of the goods was correctly done by the respondent under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods cleared to service division under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the manufacturing of pesticides where the process of dilution of duty paid pesticides chemicals became classified as manufacture due to an insertion in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents sold goods in various capacities and also cleared in bulk to their service division. A show-cause notice was issued regarding the valuation of goods cleared to the service division, leading to a demand based on the difference between sale price and value determined by the department.

2. The Revenue appealed the dropping of demand by the adjudicating authority, arguing that the differential duty was accepted and paid by the respondents within the limitation period. The Revenue contended that the value adopted by the respondent was not correctly verified and that the issue of limitation was not addressed in the impugned order, making it legally questionable.

3. The respondent's counsel argued that the goods supplied to the service center differed in packaging from those sold in the market, justifying the dropping of demand. Only one item had the same packaging, for which the duty was paid. The comparison of goods between service division and market sales was deemed inappropriate due to packaging differences.

4. The Tribunal observed a clear distinction in packaging between goods supplied to the service division and those sold in the market. While one product had comparable packaging and duty was upheld, other goods lacked comparable packaging, leading to correct valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975.

5. The Tribunal upheld the valuation done by the respondent under Rule 6(b)(ii) as the value of comparable goods was unavailable. Detailed findings were provided considering legal provisions, and it was concluded that valuation under Rule 6(b)(i) was not applicable. The department's case focused on the application of Rule 6(b)(i) rather than quantification of cost, precluding a challenge to the value quantification at this stage.

6. The Tribunal found no issues with the impugned order's findings, except for demand on one specific item, thereby partly allowing the Revenue's appeal. The impugned order was deemed sustainable, and the case was disposed of accordingly.