2018 (3) TMI 10 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - includibility - tooling/patterns which were first sold to customers of components and the same are used in the manufacture of plastic components - Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that - after purchase of tooling by the customers it became the property of the customer and when the same was used by the appellant it was supplied the customer free of cost to the appellant, therefore the amortized value of such tooling must be added in the assessable value of the automobile parts manufactured and sold by the appellant to their customer - matter remanded to re-determine the quantum of demand only on the amortized cost in respect of number of components manufactured and sold to their customer - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of cost of tooling/patterns in the assessable value of automobile components.
2. Correct determination of duty based on the amortized cost of the tooling.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of the cost of tooling/patterns in the assessable value of automobile components manufactured by the appellant. The department contended that the cost of tooling recovered by the appellant from their customers should be added to the assessable value of the parts sold. The appellant argued that the cost of tooling was borne by the customers and was already included in the value of the final product, thus demanding duty from the appellant would amount to double taxation. The appellant also cited relevant legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal examined Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, which states that the value of goods shall include any additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the tooling became the property of the customer after purchase and was supplied free of cost to the appellant for manufacturing. Therefore, only the amortized cost of the tooling should be added to the assessable value of the automobile parts, not the total cost of the tooling as demanded by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. The Tribunal observed that the correct determination of the demand based on the amortized cost was not possible at that stage due to insufficient information on the actual usage of the tooling by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to re-determine the quantum of demand based only on the amortized cost in relation to the number of components manufactured and sold to customers. The decision was made to ensure a fair assessment of duty without imposing a burden of double taxation on the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to facilitate a proper calculation of the duty amount in accordance with the law and the specific circumstances of the case.