2018 (12) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - manufacture of Polywool Yarn of different variety - short payment of duty - whether the subjected goods are required to be assessed under Rule 6(b)(i) or under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975? - Held that - Issue is decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE VERSUS M/S. ESSEL PROPACK LTD. 2016 (8) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that Tribunal found that during this period, there was a solitary sale transaction which was at ₹ 100 per k.g. in December, 1997 - In these circumstances, since that was the only comparable price available with the Tribunal, there is nothing wrong in adopting that solitary sale as the basis for arriving at the valuation for the period in question as well - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 - Rule 6(b)(i) or Rule 6(b)(ii) - Correct assessable value determination - Short-payment of duty - Penalty imposition under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975
The appeal questioned whether the goods should be assessed under Rule 6(b)(i) or Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. The appellant had used the same variety of goods both for sale in the market and captively. The authorities correctly assessed the goods under Rule 6(b)(i) by considering the value of comparable goods sold by the appellant. Citing the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane v. Essel Propack Ltd, it was argued that the assessable value was incorrectly determined by the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court precedent in Essel Propack Ltd case supported the assessment based on the value of the solitary sale transaction during the period in question, where only captive consumption of goods occurred. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.

Issue 2: Short-payment of Duty and Penalty Imposition
The appellant had declared lower values for the same variety/composition of yarn when consumed captively, leading to an alleged short-payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued for the recovery of the differential duty and the imposition of a penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Upon adjudication, the demand for duty payment was confirmed, and a penalty of ?2.00 lakhs was imposed on the appellant. The appeal to the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, prompting the present appeals. The Revenue argued that despite the availability of sale prices for comparable yarn, the appellant incorrectly adopted a costing method for determining the assessable value. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Essel Propack Ltd case was cited to support the Revenue's position. As the appeals were found to be devoid of merit, the impugned order was upheld, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai upheld the assessment of goods under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, based on the value of comparable goods sold by the appellant. The decision also confirmed the short-payment of duty and penalty imposition due to the incorrect assessable value determination by the appellant, in line with the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.