2018 (2) TMI 1384 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - product manufactured by the assessee-appellants which is neither used in the production nor manufacture of final product, but consumed for the purpose of erection of tower - applicability of Rule 11, residuary clause - Held that - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCC Pole Factory Vs. CCE, 2003 (10) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , allowed the claim of the assessee-appellants where PCC Poles were used for transmission of the electric energy. There was no further activity of manufacture and no business was carried out by the Electricity Board - Identically, in the instant case, the towers were used by the assessee-appellants for only transmission of the signals without carrying out any further business activity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of valuation rules for products not used in production or manufacture of final product.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur, regarding the valuation of a product manufactured by the Government of India Undertaking for communication services. The dispute centered around the application of valuation rules for a product that was not used in the production or manufacture of the final product but consumed for the erection of a tower. The Department sought to apply the residuary clause under Rule 11 for valuation, which was challenged by the assessee-appellants.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the material on record, it was noted that a similar issue had been considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's previous case. The Tribunal observed that if excisable goods are not sold but used for consumption in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value should be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture. However, in this case, as the goods were not consumed in the production or manufacture of other articles, referring to the cost of production or manufacture would not be relevant.

Subsequently, the Commissioner had granted relief to the assessee-appellants in a similar case with identical circumstances. Additionally, a precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a different case involving PCC Poles supported the assessee's claim. The Supreme Court had allowed the claim where the poles were used for transmission without further manufacturing activity or business operations. Similarly, in the present case, the towers were solely used for signal transmission without additional business activities.

Based on the previous decisions and the Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the assessee-appellants.