2017 (1) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - stock transfer - goods valued at transaction value of similar goods sold to independent buyers - Revenue entertained a view that they should have followed provisions of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - When there is an independent sales and transaction value is available there is no application of provisions of Rule 8 to arrive at the valuation during the material period. Extended period of limitation - Held that - we find no ground to allege suppression, fraud, collusion etc. with an intention to evade payment of duty - extended period not invocable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods cleared on stock transfer basis, applicability of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, time bar on demand notice, imposition of penalty for alleged malafide intent, sustainability of demand for extended period.

In the case, the appellants were engaged in manufacturing paper and had two units in different locations. The dispute arose regarding the valuation of uncoated base paper cleared on a stock transfer basis to their unit in Haryana. The Revenue contended that duty should have been paid on 110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The Original Authority upheld the demand for differential duty and imposed a penalty. The appellant argued that the demand notice was time-barred, and Rule 8 did not apply as they had sold similar goods to independent buyers. They also highlighted that all duty paid on the transfer was available as Cenvat credit to the Haryana unit, negating any malafide intent. The Revenue, however, maintained its stance, stating the appellant did not provide the cost sheet and legal issues were adequately examined.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants had paid duty based on the normal transaction value for similar goods sold to independent buyers. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that when independent sales occur, Rule 8 does not apply for valuation. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's argument that even if duty was payable under Rule 8, the amount paid exceeded the calculated sum. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the demand for the extended period unsustainable, as the duty paid clearances were eligible for full Cenvat credit and were duly reported to the Department, indicating no suppression, fraud, or collusion to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the correct valuation method based on independent sales, rejecting the application of Rule 8, and dismissing the demand for the extended period due to the availability of Cenvat credit and lack of evidence of fraudulent intent.