2008 (11) TMI 149 - AT - Central Excise

Transfer of goods to sister units - dispute relates to the valuation of these goods - revenue s contention that comparable goods have been sold to certain buyers and when the values of two products are available, there is no need for resorting to cost construction method, is not acceptable impugned order rejecting cost construction method, set aside - there is revenue neutrality so there cannot be any intention to evade duty transfer of goods was known to department no suppression demand is time barred

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods based on cost construction method, quantum of profit margin, suppression of facts, inter-unit transfer, revenue neutrality, legality of impugned order.

In this case, the appellants were involved in a dispute regarding the valuation of goods, specifically iron powder transferred from one factory to another. The appellants used the cost construction method to determine the duty liability, while the revenue argued that comparable goods had been sold to certain buyers, making the cost construction method unnecessary. The appellant's counsel contended that the sporadic sales to third parties should not be the basis for valuation, as the goods were primarily transferred for internal consumption in sister units.

Regarding the quantum of profit margin, the appellants had taken a 10% margin of profit, but the revenue insisted that the balance sheet profit percentage should have been adopted. The appellant's counsel referred to CAS4, stating that certain elements need not be considered in costing the product, potentially entitling the appellants to a refund if CAS is followed. They also highlighted previous decisions emphasizing revenue neutrality in inter-unit transfers, where duty paid by one unit is credited in another, leading to no intention to evade duty.

The departmental representative argued that when sale invoices for identical goods are available, the values from those invoices should be adopted as per the Valuation Rules. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellants had regularly filed returns and there was no evidence of suppression of facts. The Tribunal noted that the department could have issued a show cause notice if they disagreed with the valuation, but the notice issued beyond the normal period alleging suppression of facts was not valid. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument on revenue neutrality in inter-unit transfers and found no merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing the legality of the impugned order and the lack of intention to evade duty in inter-unit transfers.