2017 (4) TMI 598 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - job-work - valuation - case of Revenue is that appellant have overvalued the goods and accordingly availed excess deemed credit which is attributed to the overvaluation of job work goods - Held that - the department has not verified at what value the goods have been exported by the merchant exporter. Even if value of merchant exporter is adopted the said value which will be obviously more than value arrived at on job work basis - the deemed credit which is attributed the valuation of the job work goods cannot be disputed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of excisable goods for export under bond and deemed credit availed based on Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

In this case, the appellant cleared excisable goods for export under bond between February 2002 to October 2002 and availed deemed credit based on the valuation of the goods at 115% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The adjudicating authority, relying on Board Circular No.619/10/2002-CX, held that the valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis is governed by Rule 11, read with Rule 6, and referred to the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Ujagar Prints and M/s. Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt Ltd. It was concluded that the appellant had overvalued the goods, leading to excess deemed credit due to overvaluation of job work goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this view, prompting the appellant to appeal.

The appellant argued that valuation of job work goods should consider the landed cost of raw materials and job charges, including overheads and profit of the job worker, as per the Ujagar Prints judgment. Various elements like shrinkages, handling charges, and interest were correctly taken into account by the appellant. The appellant contended that the circular relied upon by the lower authorities was specific to CDs and could not be universally applied to all products like fabric, which incurs additional costs during manufacture. Referring to the department's own instruction bearing no.1/94 dated 23-3-1994, the appellant highlighted that transportation charges, Octroi, handling charges, and "shrinkages" should be included in the cost, and since this circular was not withdrawn, the lower authorities' decision against it was incorrect.

On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the lower authorities' decision.

Upon careful consideration of both sides' submissions and perusal of the records, the Tribunal found that the goods were cleared for exports, and the valuation was in line with the principle established by the Supreme Court in the Ujagar Prints case. The Tribunal emphasized that the landed cost, including elements like handling charges, shrinkages, and interest, must be considered for valuing job work goods. It was noted that the department did not verify the value at which the goods were exported by the merchant exporter. Even if the merchant exporter's value was adopted, which would likely be higher than the job work basis value, it would still be acceptable for the clearance of export goods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegation of overvaluation of job work goods, and the deemed credit attributed to the valuation of job work goods could not be disputed. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.