2018 (1) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - it was revealed that the said goods were sold at a higher price in wholesale trade as compared to the value on which Central Excise duty was paid by the appellant - Held that - the very same issue in the appellant s own case CCE, Panchkula Versus M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 800 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that Since, the price of paper reels at the depot at the time of removal was available and the duty had been paid only on that price, there is no short payment of duty - the differential value on that account cannot be included in the assessable value of the appellant s goods - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand on goods sold at a higher price compared to the value on which Central Excise duty was paid.
2. Inclusion of cutting and packing charges in the assessable value of goods.
3. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
4. Comparison of judgments relied upon by both parties.
5. Interpretation of duty payment based on goods cleared at the time of removal.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a demand for differential duty by the Revenue on goods sold at a higher price than the value on which Central Excise duty was paid. The appellant argued that the cutting and packing of paper in sheet form by cutting centers after the clearance of goods were not part of their manufacturing process, hence the differential value should not be included in the assessable value of the goods.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal referred to previous judgments in similar cases, including the Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., to determine the inclusion of cutting and packing charges in the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal highlighted that the duty on goods on an ad valorem basis should be based on the value of goods cleared at the time of removal, not the selling price of processed goods.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal noted that the same issue in the appellant's case had been previously decided and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the value of goods at the time of clearance for duty calculation, as seen in the case of J.G. Glass Industries Ltd.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal compared the judgments relied upon by both parties, emphasizing that the appellant's case was distinguishable from cases like Siddhartha Tubes Ltd., where activities were carried out in the same premises. In the present case, the cutting and packing activities were undertaken by a job-worker separate from the manufacturer, leading to a different interpretation.

Issue 5:
Based on the discussion and analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, citing that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the judgment in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal concluded that the judgments relied upon by the Revenue were not applicable to the specific facts of the case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and interpretation of previous judgments in similar cases played a crucial role in determining the inclusion of cutting and packing charges in the assessable value of goods for duty calculation, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeals in favor of the appellant.