2017 (12) TMI 1077 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - R & D expenditure - contention of Revenue was that the said t expenses on R & D should be considered u/r 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and should be added with 15% as required under the said Rule - Held that - Pre-condition in said Rule 8 is that it is applicable when the goods are not sold but consumed captively - SCN dated 30.11.2005 nowhere established that the goods were not sold but they were cleared on stock transfer basis without involvement of sale. There was no case of invocation of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - penalties also not warranted - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Allegations of including R&D expenditures in assessable value under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and demand of Central Excise duty. Allegations of profit sharing under a supply agreement and its impact on assessable value. Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 without a proposal for confiscation of goods.

Analysis:

1. R&D Expenditures in Assessable Value:
The appellants faced allegations regarding R&D expenditures paid to entities, with a proposal to include these expenses in the assessable value under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The show cause notice demanded a specific amount under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found the show cause notice ill-conceived as it failed to establish that the goods were not sold but consumed captively, a pre-condition for invoking Rule 8. The Tribunal concluded that the demands related to R&D expenditures were not sustainable, and the show cause notice was misconceived in this regard.

2. Profit Sharing under Supply Agreement:
Another issue raised was the profit sharing arrangement under a supply agreement, with allegations that this additional consideration should be added to the assessable value for Central Excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the clause of profit sharing was not related to the goods manufactured by the appellant but to goods traded by them. As the show cause notice did not establish a connection between profit sharing and manufactured goods, the Tribunal deemed the demand in this regard as misconceived and unsustainable.

3. Imposition of Personal Penalty:
Regarding the imposition of personal penalties under Rule 26 without a proposal for confiscation of goods, the appellants argued that such penalties were applicable only when dealing with goods liable for confiscation. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, finding that the personal penalties imposed on the appellants were not sustainable in the absence of a proposal for confiscation of goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals by setting aside the confirmation of demands related to R&D expenditures and profit sharing, along with penalties imposed. The Tribunal found the show cause notice lacking in establishing the grounds for the demands raised, leading to the decisions in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides insights into the issues raised, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and decisions on each aspect of the case.