2015 (12) TMI 667 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation - sale of soft drink through unit II - unit II is doing printing on un-printed bottles - Determination of assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) - Held that - Since the matter is back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, it may not be necessary to interfere with the order of the Tribunal insofar as it directs remand of the matter. However, the grievance of the Department in the present appeal is as it is argued by Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for the appellant/Department that the Tribunal has restricted the period in which the issue is to be decided from January, 1997 to October, 1997 whereas the show cause notice covers the period from January, 1995 to October, 1997. Price list to which reference is made related to Rishikesh Unit and not to Pune Unit. Therefore, we modify the order of the Tribunal with clarification that the period would be the entire period that was the subject matter of show cause notice i.e. from January, 1995 to October, 1997. At the same time, we also clarify that it would be open to the assessee to argue before the Commissioner that it was not permissible for the Department to invoke the larger period of limitation as there was no suppression or misstatement on the part of the assessee. If such a plea is raised, it would be for the Commissioner to take the view thereon with reference to the record and decide the same in accordance with law. - Appeal disposed of.

Issues:
1. Valuation of goods under the Central Excise Act.
2. Application of the Split Billing System.
3. Determination of assessable value and duty payment.
4. Interpretation of provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
5. Tribunal's jurisdiction and scope of remand.

Valuation of goods under the Central Excise Act:
The case involved an assessee with two manufacturing units, one producing unprinted glass bottles and the other printing logos on these bottles. The dispute arose from the adoption of a Split Billing System where Unit I billed for unprinted bottles and Unit II for printing labor without paying excise duty for printing. The Department alleged undervaluation of the unprinted bottles, leading to a show cause notice for short paid duty. The Assessing Officer found the valuation methods questionable due to no sale between the units, prompting a backward valuation from Unit II's sale price.

Application of the Split Billing System:
The Split Billing System adopted by the assessee raised concerns regarding artificial reduction of the unprinted bottle's value, impacting excise duty payment. The system resulted in significant differences between the sale prices of unprinted and printed bottles, despite no actual sale between the units. This led to allegations of contravention of Central Excise Act provisions, necessitating a detailed investigation into the valuation practices.

Determination of assessable value and duty payment:
The Assessing Officer's Order-in-Original highlighted discrepancies in the assessee's valuation methods, emphasizing the need for arms-length valuation based on independent sales prices. The Tribunal's remand order directed valuation on a cost construction basis post-January 1997, with considerations for potential suppression or misstatement in pricing. The need for a fair and transparent valuation process to determine assessable value and duty payment was a crucial aspect of the judgment.

Interpretation of provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act:
The Tribunal's decision to restrict the period for consideration to January 1997 to October 1997 was challenged by the Department, arguing that the entire period from January 1995 to October 1997 should be examined. The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal's reference to a price list from Rishikesh Unit was incorrect, expanding the period for assessment. This interpretation emphasized the importance of a comprehensive review of the entire period in cases of alleged suppression or misstatement.

Tribunal's jurisdiction and scope of remand:
The Supreme Court modified the Tribunal's order to encompass the entire period mentioned in the show cause notice, allowing the Department to investigate the alleged suppression or misstatement. The clarification provided leeway for the assessee to contest the Department's invocation of a larger period of limitation, underscoring the Tribunal's authority to remand cases for thorough examination. The judgment upheld the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in excise duty valuation disputes.

← Previous Next →