2018 (2) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - miscellaneous income under the various components like scrap sale, drum sale to the employees - CENVAT credit - compensation received by the appellant for supplying inferior quality of ink - Held that - the miscellaneous income was adhoc income which was generated by selling the scrap like sale of old drums and furniture, etc - appellant has also received advances from the customers which was not return during the period under consideration but remained as outstanding in the balancesheet - the said income cannot be added to the value of final products. CENVAT credit - Compensation received by the appellant for supplying inferior quality of ink - Held that - The compensation is a regular activity and this was an income of the appellant which was to be added to the value of the goods. The Commissioner has rightly asked the appellant to reverse the credit on this amount. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order-in-original regarding miscellaneous income and compensation received for supplying inferior ink.

Analysis:

1. Miscellaneous Income: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and printing packaging material, showed miscellaneous income from various sources like scrap sale and drum sale to employees. The department also found compensation received for supplying inferior ink. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand for most miscellaneous income components but upheld the demand for compensation received for supplying inferior ink. The Tribunal noted that the miscellaneous income was adhoc, generated from selling scrap and receiving advances from customers, which were not to be added to the value of final products. Therefore, the demand for most miscellaneous income components was dismissed.

2. Compensation for Supplying Inferior Ink: The Commissioner directed the appellant to reverse the credit for the compensation received for supplying inferior ink. The Tribunal agreed that this compensation was a regular activity and constituted income for the appellant, which should be added to the value of the goods manufactured. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to ask the appellant to reverse the credit for this amount. Consequently, the demand for compensation received for supplying inferior ink was upheld.

3. Conclusion: The Tribunal found the impugned order reasonable, sustaining it and dismissing both appeals. The decision was based on the distinction between adhoc miscellaneous income and regular income from compensation, ensuring that only the latter was added to the value of goods manufactured. The judgment provided clarity on the treatment of different types of income in the context of manufacturing activities.