2015 (2) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Determination of assessable value - Non inclusion of notional profit @ 10/15% of the manufacturing cost in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act - Held that - Adjudicating authority have travelled beyond the show-cause notice by adopting comparable value method for confirmation of the demand alongwith penalty. Further, from the documents on record, it is seen that the appellant communicated the declared assessable value, vide declaration filed under Rule 26, from time to time in respect of job work on behalf of HLL. This declaration has been filed on the basis of communication received from the principal manufacturer. Further the assessable value declared varied only marginally, which is evident from the cost certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Further, the appellant had suo motu paid the differential duty alongwith interest, much before the issue of show-cause notice. The show-cause notice does not allege any contumacious conduct or active disregard to provisions of law or concealment on part of the appellant. The only ground taken in show-cause notice is wrong and misconceived. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2005 is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. It is informed by the ld. Counsel that during the pendency of appeal, Revenue has collected the impugned demand by way of adjustment of refund. The Revenue is hereby directed to refund the impugned amount collected forthwith, not exceeding 30 days from receipt of the order, alongwith interest as per Rules. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Proper assessment of assessable value for goods manufactured on job work basis.
2. Application of Central Excise Valuation Rules and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
4. Allegations of undervaluation and intent to evade duty.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173 of 1944 Rules.
6. Compliance with disclosure requirements and payment of duty.
7. Interpretation of valuation rules in the context of job work for a principal manufacturer.
8. Consideration of cost certificates issued by a Chartered Accountant.
9. Allegations of misstatement or fraud with intent to evade duty.
10. Refund of collected amount by Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the proper assessment of the assessable value for goods manufactured on job work basis for a principal manufacturer. The appellant had not included notional profit in the assessable value while paying duty, leading to a show-cause notice alleging under-valuation.

2. The dispute revolved around the application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant contested the notice by arguing that the assessable value was correctly declared based on the value of raw material, job work done, and manufacturing expenses, including notional profit as advised by the principal manufacturer.

3. The issue of extended period of limitation was raised, with the appellant arguing that there was no case of fraud or willful misstatement to invoke the extended period. They relied on CBEC Circulars and court rulings to support their contention.

4. Allegations of undervaluation and intent to evade duty were central to the case. The appellant maintained that they had a good compliance record, disclosed all relevant information, and paid the duty differentials suo motu before the notice was issued, indicating no intent to evade duty.

5. The imposition of penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173 of 1944 Rules was challenged by the appellant, who argued that penalty should not apply as all relevant facts were disclosed, and duty was paid promptly with interest.

6. The interpretation of valuation rules in the context of job work for a principal manufacturer was crucial. The appellant emphasized that they followed the valuation method based on raw material cost, processing charges, and notional profit, as advised by the principal manufacturer and communicated through cost certificates.

7. The consideration of cost certificates issued by a Chartered Accountant was highlighted by the appellant to support their contention that the assessable value was correctly determined and duty was paid accordingly, without any under-valuation.

8. Allegations of misstatement or fraud with intent to evade duty were refuted by the appellant, who argued that the demand was time-barred and that there was no active undervaluation or concealment of facts on their part.

9. The final decision allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the Revenue to refund the collected amount. The tribunal found that the appellant had complied with disclosure requirements, paid duty differentials promptly, and that the show-cause notice was misconceived, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief.

10. The issue of refund of the collected amount by Revenue was addressed, with a directive to refund the amount collected within a specified timeframe along with interest as per rules.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues involved in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.

← Previous Next →