2018 (8) TMI 949 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - related party transaction - CBEC Circular No.692/08/2003-CX dated 13-2-2003 - Held that - The CAS-4 Certificate itself was not questioned with supporting evidence; Revenue did not initiate any action independently to ascertain by another Cost Accountant whether the CAS-4 submitted by respondents is correct or not - As the Revenue failed to substantiate the allegations on CAS-4 submitted the respondents by concrete evidence the appeal is bound to fall - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the valuation of Poly Isobutane (PIB) cleared to related parties under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Challenge to the show-cause notice demanding duty based on the cost of production.
- Acceptance of CAS-4 certificate for the year 2006-2007 by the Commissioner.
- Review by the Committee of Chief Commissioners regarding the CAS-4 certificate.
- Appeal by Revenue against the order accepting the CAS-4 certificate.
- Validity of the CAS-4 certificate and the Revenue's failure to substantiate allegations.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the clearance of Poly Isobutane (PIB) by the Respondents to related parties, triggering a dispute over valuation under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents paid duty based on a notional assessable value equal to 110% of the cost of production, as per Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

2. The show-cause notice issued by the Department demanded duty by fixing the cost of production 20% higher than the previous year's production, leading to a challenge by the Respondents. The Respondents argued that the demand was arbitrary, citing the availability of CAS-4 certificates for different assessment periods and discharge of duty as per CBEC Circulars.

3. The Commissioner accepted the CAS-4 certificate for the year 2006-2007, but the Committee of Chief Commissioners reviewed the order. They highlighted discrepancies in the CAS-4 certificate, specifically regarding the treatment of direct wages and salaries, work in progress, and finished goods stock in the cost calculation process.

4. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order accepting the CAS-4 certificate, contending that the correctness of the certificate was questionable. However, the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence or verification by another Cost Accountant to challenge the validity of the CAS-4 submitted by the Respondents.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the Revenue's allegations on the CAS-4 certificate were not substantiated with evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that faulting the CAS-4 certificate without concrete verification did not support the Revenue's case. The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment and concluded that the appeal by Revenue lacked merit, leading to its rejection.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence and verifying the correctness of documents like the CAS-4 certificate. The decision highlighted the need for thorough assessment and evidence before challenging valuation methods or certificates in tax disputes.