2018 (8) TMI 1215 - AT - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - section 4 or 4A of CEA - manufacture of Nozzles (8409 99 20), Injectors (8409 99 30), Pumps (8413 30 10), delivery valves & elements (8413 30 10) - valuation claimed u/s 4A of CEA on the ground that the products viz., Nozzles, injectors, etc.,are commonly used for manufacturing of automobiles and these items have to be construed as parts, components and assemblies of automobiles - scope of SCN. Held that - Both the lower authorities were in error in traversing beyond show cause notice and confirming the demands raised on the ground and reasoning that goods manufactured by appellant were in a solitary case sold by automobile dealers while essentially the allegation was only that these goods are used as parts, components and accessories of automobiles but the allegations in the show cause notice and the factual position is that the appellant is clearing these goods for various other applications like used in pumps, used for drawing water, generation of electricity, etc. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Assessment under Sec.4 vs. Sec.4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for manufacturing products commonly used in automobiles.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in this case challenged an Order-in-Appeal that demanded differential duty from the appellant for manufacturing products like Nozzles, Injectors, Pumps, delivery valves, and elements. The dispute revolved around whether these products should be assessed under Sec.4 or Sec.4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant claimed assessment under Sec.4 and discharged the duty liability, while the authorities contended that the products should be assessed under Sec.4A as parts, components, and assemblies of automobiles.

2. The show cause notice alleged that the products were commonly used for manufacturing automobiles, leading to the demand for differential duty. However, the appellant argued that the goods had various other applications beyond automobiles. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority upheld the demand for differential duty under Sec.4A. The appellant's counsel highlighted discrepancies in the show cause notice periods and argued that the authorities went beyond the notice's scope in their decisions.

3. Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal observed that the show cause notice did not provide evidence that the goods were sold by automobile dealers, as alleged by the authorities. The notice only mentioned the products' use in stationary diesel engines, water drawing, power generation, automobiles, and tractors. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in confirming the demands based on the assumption that the goods were solely used in automobiles. The Tribunal concluded that the demands exceeded the scope of the show cause notice and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

4. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order was based on the grounds that the demands confirmed by the lower authorities went beyond the allegations in the show cause notice. As a result, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The Tribunal emphasized that the factual position indicated the goods were used for various applications, not just limited to automobiles, leading to the dismissal of the differential duty demands under Sec.4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.