2018 (3) TMI 1549 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - clearance to sister unit - extended period of limitation - Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as in April 98, the clearance was on the higher side, the assessable value for the succeeding months has also to be adopted on the higher price - Held that - there is no dispute that the entire 100% clearance was to their own sister unit who was availing MODVAT credit of duty paid by the present appellant - the entire exercise was revenue neutral in which case the malafide cannot be attributed to appellant - extended period of limitation not invokable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty based on incorrect value in one consignment leading to proceedings against the appellant.
2. Applicability of longer period of limitation for initiating proceedings.
3. Claim of revenue neutrality due to sister unit availing MODVAT credit.
4. Interpretation of malafide intention in case of revenue neutral transactions.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing lubricating oil, clearing products to their sister unit with duty payment based on assessable value. A discrepancy arose when one consignment in April 1998 was valued higher than subsequent clearances. The Revenue initiated proceedings, alleging subsequent assessments should also use the higher value due to the initial error. The appellant argued the higher value in April 1998 was a mistake, not an attempt to evade duty, as the sister unit was availing MODVAT credit, ensuring revenue neutrality. Citing a tribunal decision, the appellant contended that no malafide intention existed in such revenue-neutral scenarios.

The Tribunal considered the appellant's explanation and confirmed that the entire clearance was to their sister unit, which was availing MODVAT credit for the duty paid. This situation made the transactions revenue neutral, as acknowledged in a previous tribunal case. Consequently, the Tribunal held that attributing malafide intention to the appellant was unwarranted. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that invoking a longer period of limitation was not justified in this case. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the revenue-neutral nature of the transactions and the absence of malafide intent on the appellant's part.