2017 (10) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - job-work - The department was of the view that the appellants have to apply the valuation laid down in Ujjagar Prints case 1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , and therefore cannot deduct the value of scrap from the cost of raw materials - Held that - As per the proposition laid down in Ujagar Prints case, the appellants have to pay duty on the raw materials plus cost of conversion charges plus margin of profit. It does not say that the appellant can deduct the cost of raw materials when the scrap was returned to the principal - demand upheld. Penalty - Held that - In the present situation, wherein there has been interpretation of the proposition laid down in the decision rendered in Ujagar Prints by the appellant, being merely a dispute of interpretation and the appellant having reduced the value of scrap returned only, the penalty imposed is unwarranted - penalty set aside. Decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of scrap in job work manufacturing for duty calculation; Application of Ujagar Prints case; Imposition of penalty based on interpretation of law

In this case, the appellant, a manufacturer of cotton yarn on job work basis, received cotton from a principal and converted it into yarn, returning the scrap cotton yarn to the principal while deducting the value of the scrap from the cost of raw materials for duty calculation. The department contended that the valuation should follow the Ujagar Prints case, disallowing the deduction of scrap value from raw material cost. A show cause notice was issued, demanding a sum with interest and penalty. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. Upon appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter was remanded for re-adjudication in terms of CAS-4, resulting in a reduced demand, interest, and equal penalty imposition. The appellant argued that they acted in good faith based on the Ujagar Prints case, returning the scrap to the principal and reducing the cost of manufacture accordingly. The appellant asserted no suppression of facts, stating the dispute was solely a matter of legal interpretation, requesting the penalty to be set aside. The AR reiterated the findings, highlighting the benefits granted during the denovo adjudication based on the CAS-4 certificate.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to the Ujagar Prints case, emphasizing that duty should be paid on raw materials, conversion charges, and profit margin without allowing deduction of raw material cost when returning scrap to the principal. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but found the penalty unwarranted due to the dispute being an interpretation issue, modifying the order to set aside the penalty while maintaining the duty demand and interest. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the penalty, with any consequential relief to follow.