2004 (10) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determining the value of captively consumed parts for excisable goods.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Tecumseh Products India Ltd., manufacturers of Hermetically Sealed Compressors and parts. The central issue was the valuation of captively consumed parts used in manufacturing compressors both in-house and at a sister concern. The Commissioner of Central Excise had determined the cost of production of captively consumed goods, including elements like material cost, labor cost, overheads, administrative cost, advertising expenses, depreciation, and interest. Consequently, he included selling and marketing expenses along with interest in the assessable value, leading to a duty demand and penalties in two separate appeals.

The appellants were represented by Smt. L. Maithili, who highlighted a Board's Circular modifying the cost of production of captively consumed goods to align with CAS-4. She argued that selling and distribution expenses should not be added to the assessable value based on CAS-4 guidelines. The advocate relied on previous Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that only the cost of manufacture, raw materials, and profit should be included in the assessable value, excluding post-manufacture marketing and sales expenses.

On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by Shri P.M. Saleem, contended that the cost of captively consumed goods should mirror Section 4(1)(a) value, encompassing all expenses, including selling and distribution costs. The Revenue also asserted that adherence to CAS-4 standards was not obligatory for the Department.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found the issue aligned with previous Tribunal decisions referenced by the appellants' advocate. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority based the decision on an outdated Board's Circular, which had been modified concerning the determination of captively consumed goods' production cost. Dismissing the Revenue's argument against following CAS-4 standards, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to Board's clarifications in line with legal provisions and judicial precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and providing consequential relief.