1998 (1) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over assessable value of Copper and Aluminium coils for transformers.
2. Interpretation of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 regarding assessable value calculation.
3. Whether the production of Coils amounts to manufacture and if Coils are excisable products.
4. Applicability of duty on inputs and profit margin in the assessable value calculation.
5. Whether Coils are marketable products subject to duty.
6. Precedent cases and Tribunal decisions on similar issues.
7. Justification for not adding duty paid on inputs to assessable value.
8. Consideration of profit margin in the absence of data.

Analysis:

1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved a dispute regarding the assessable value of Copper and Aluminium coils prepared by the Punjab State Electricity Board for transformers. The Department contested the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside the Assistant Collector's orders in various proceedings.

2. The crux of the dispute was the assessable value calculation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The assessee submitted price lists showing the assessable value as the total cost of raw materials and manufacturing cost, deducting the Central Excise duty with Modvat credit. Profit margin was not added, arguing that the Coils were not marketed.

3. In one appeal, the Assistant Collector directed the inclusion of duty on inputs and a 10% profit margin in the assessable value, which was set aside by the Collector (Appeals). Another appeal arose from a demand raised due to duty not paid on the approved assessable value, where the Collector (Appeals) held that Coils were not excisable products, thus no duty was payable.

4. The Tribunal considered various appeals related to demands for different periods, consistently setting aside the demands based on the argument that Coils were not excisable goods and did not involve manufacture, as per the Collector (Appeals) decisions.

5. The Department contended that Coils were distinct from ordinary wire, requiring technical expertise for production and being essential components of transformers. They argued that Coils were excisable goods due to their unique characteristics and application in transformers.

6. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Punjab State Electricity Board cases, where it was held that Coils were not marketable separate commodities and thus not dutiable. The Tribunal also cited precedents on similar issues involving different products to support their decision.

7. A significant point raised was that duty paid on inputs should not be added to the assessable value, as established in the Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. case by a larger Bench of the Tribunal.

8. Regarding profit margin, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete data to justify adding a margin of profit to the assessable value. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal found no basis to direct the inclusion of profit margin.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the Collector (Appeals) and emphasizing the lack of grounds for interference based on the arguments presented and legal precedents cited.