2017 (7) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2002 - Integrated Mobile Missile Launcher (IMML) - P-II Missile Launcher - The allegation of the department is that excise duty has not been paid on the chassis and on the equipment - Held that - The Hon ble Apex Court in that judgment held that where the raw material is not liable to excise duty or where such duty is nil , no excise duty is as a matter of fact is paid upon it and that benefit of exemption notification will not apply to such goods - the appellants cannot then lay claim to duty exemption under the said notification No. 6/2002 for the impugned products namely IIML and P-II Missile Launcher. The differential duty liability on the clearances of these items made without discharge of proper duty liability thereon will then sustain. Classification of launching mechanism - assessees themselves have classified the item under 8425 at the outset. They have subsequently sought re-classification of the items under 8705 even in the written submissions submitted during the course of hearing. The appellant seems to be once again claiming CSH 8425. It is thus seen that the appellant themselves are changing their stance on the classification - Held that - the said vehicles manufactured by BEML and other components manufactured by LTM (BU) have been manufactured to the design supplied by the buyer of the product and all the said items are fitted together to form an integrated mechanical unit which is clearly covered under para-2 of clause (b) of notes under 8425. Valuation - money value of free receipt materials of chassis/vehicles - design and drawing of engineering charges - includibility - Held that - Held that - The law is very clear that when design and drawings are intrinsically tied to the emergence of the final product and without which the intended goods cannot be conceived or manufactured, the intrinsic value of such design and drawing charges will necessarily be required to be added for the purpose of determining assessable value of the goods that have emerged neutralizing the same - value of chassis/vehicles and design and drawing charges, since amounting to additional consideration, there value will have to be included in the assessable value of the products cleared as a one single unit. Extended period of limitation - Held that - Appellants are definitely not a neophyte in the field of central excise law and procedure. The fact that they are manufacturing such high value items for launch of missile/defense sector etc., will necessarily cast an additional responsibility on the appellants to ensure their compliance to all procedural requirements including correct discharge of central excise duty liability - The plea of the assessee that the goods were supplied for defence purposes does not absolve the unit from the charges of suppression - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification and valuation of goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants, specifically Integrated Mobile Missile Launcher (IMML), P-II Missile Launcher, and Launching Mechanism (LM).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification and Valuation of IMML and P-II Missile Launcher
The Department alleged that the appellants did not include the value of free issue materials in the assessable value of IMML and LM. The Commissioner ordered classification of IMML and P-II Missile Launcher under CSH 8705.00, launching mechanism under CSH 8425.00, and the addition of the value of free issue materials to the assessable value. The appellants argued for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, claiming they paid duty on the chassis and equipment. However, the Tribunal dismissed their claim as the vehicles were exempt from excise duty, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal upheld the differential duty liability on the clearances of IMML and P-II Missile Launcher.

Issue 2: Classification and Valuation of Launching Mechanism
The appellants initially classified the launching mechanism under 8425 but later sought reclassification under 8705. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the appellant's stance and upheld the classification under 8425. The Tribunal agreed with the adjudicating authority's analysis that the launching mechanism formed an integrated mechanical unit under CSH 8425, rejecting the appellant's claim for reclassification.

Additional Considerations and Limitation Issues
The Tribunal addressed the inclusion of the value of free receipt materials like chassis/vehicles, design, and drawing charges in the assessable value. The appellants' varying practices in including such values led to a decision that intrinsic values must be added for determining the assessable value. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's contention on limitation, emphasizing the responsibility of the appellants to ensure compliance with excise duty requirements, imposing penalties for non-inclusion of values and suppression of facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and upholding the decisions on classification, valuation, and penalties based on the detailed analysis provided in the judgment.