1997 (10) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order-in-appeal allowing the appeal filed by the respondent.
2. Determination of Central Excise duty on stator and rotors used captively in the manufacture of mono block pump sets.
3. Dispute over the assessment of stators and rotors based on cost certificates.
4. Contention regarding the basis for working out the value of captively consumed goods.
5. Interpretation of the relationship between profit earned on the final product and the value of captively consumed goods.
6. Reliance on legal precedents to support the arguments presented in the appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, stemmed from a dispute regarding the assessment of Central Excise duty on stators and rotors used captively in the production of mono block pump sets. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras, had initially ordered the assessment based on the selling price of the final product, which was contested by the respondent. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal, directing the assessment to be finalized on the basis of cost certificates issued by Chartered Accountants for the year 1987-88. The key contention revolved around whether the profit earned on the final product should be the basis for determining the value of captively consumed goods. The appellant argued that the Collector (Appeals) erred in this regard, citing legal precedents to support their position.

Upon considering the grounds raised by both parties, the Tribunal examined the Assistant Collector's decision and the evidence presented. The Assistant Collector had demanded duty on stators and rotors attributing the increased price of the final product solely to the enhanced cost of these components. However, it was acknowledged that the cost escalation of the mono block pump sets might not be solely due to the stator and rotor costs but also other factors. The respondent provided detailed Chartered Accountant certificates showing cost breakdowns, which were initially rejected by the Assistant Collector on the basis of being from earlier years. The Collector (Appeals) emphasized the importance of using relevant cost certificates for the assessment period, suggesting that the earlier rejection was due to the timing of the certificates. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the need for certificates related to the relevant period, i.e., 1987-88, and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Collector (Appeals) decision, highlighting the significance of utilizing cost certificates specific to the assessment period. The judgment underscored the importance of accurately determining the value of captively consumed goods based on relevant cost information rather than solely relying on the profit earned from the final product. The legal precedents cited were considered within the context of the specific case facts, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.