2006 (10) TMI 19 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) Tools/die manufactured and captively consumed in parts and components of Motor vechiles Without included notional profit it can t sold to manufacturer of motor vechile - Held that manufacturer of motor vechile is not owner of tools /die.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of cost of tools/dies for amortization.
2. Inclusion of notional margin of profit of buyer in the cost of tools/dies for amortization.

Analysis:
1. The issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the determination of the cost of tools/dies for amortization. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing tools/dies for a specific company, sold these tools/dies to the company at a value that included their profit margin. However, the tools/dies were not physically handed over but kept with the company for further manufacturing. The authorities held that the cost for amortization should include a notional margin of profit of the company at a rate of 10%. The appellant argued that the cost at the hand of the company already included their profit margin, which should be considered for determining the cost of parts and components. The Commissioner's order supported the appellant's claim by highlighting that the sale value included the appellant's profit margin, and the notional margin of profit of the company should not be added for amortization.

2. The second issue revolved around the inclusion of the notional margin of profit of the buyer in the cost of tools/dies for amortization. The Commissioner in a subsequent order ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the notional margin of profit of the buyer should not be added since the tools/dies were the property of the buyer after the sale. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that the cost at the hand of the buyer should be considered for determining the assessable value of parts and components, without adding any further margin of profit of the buyer. The Tribunal cited a previous order to support this view, further strengthening the decision.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief. The judgment clarified that the cost of tools/dies at the hand of the buyer should be the basis for determining the assessable value of parts and components, without adding the notional margin of profit of the buyer for amortization.