2017 (2) TMI 310 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of Chartered Certificate - natural justice - Valuation - whether the depreciation and financial expenses consisting of various percentages of the cost of production as per the profit and loss accounts were required to be added to the assessable value? Held that - If a Chartered Accountant s certificate needs to be rejected then there has to be some concrete basis for rejection of the same. Similarly, if any amount needs to be included in assessable value that revenue has to be some concrete basis for quantification of such amount. The same also needs to be communicated to the appellant to enable them to defend their case - In the instant case, revenue has failed to do so. In the absence of any reasonable ground for rejection of the Chartered Accountant s certificate, the same cannot be rejected - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Assessable value calculation, inclusion of depreciation and financial expenses, extended period invocation, approval of price lists, availability of Modvat credit, nature of goods as capital goods, rejection of Chartered Accountant's certificate, basis for quantification of expenses.

Assessable value calculation: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing steel moulds and socketing machines, faced a show-cause notice alleging willful suppression of assessable values. The notice proposed adding profit margin, depreciation, and financial expenses to the cost of manufacturing. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise for reevaluation.

Inclusion of depreciation and financial expenses: The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand, leading to the matter being brought before the Tribunal again. The appellant argued that financial expenses were not incurred for the products in question and sought clarification on the basis for calculating depreciation. The Commissioner summarily rejected these demands for data.

Extended period invocation: Despite the appellant's argument that the situation was revenue neutral due to Modvat credit availability to a sister unit, the Tribunal found that the goods were capital goods and not exempt from duty during the relevant period, making extended period invocation valid.

Approval of price lists and rejection of Chartered Accountant's certificate: The appellant had submitted price lists with Chartered Accountant's certificates, which were approved by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that rejecting such certificates requires a concrete basis, and in the absence of reasonable grounds, the certificates cannot be disregarded.

Nature of goods as capital goods: The goods manufactured were deemed capital goods supplied to a sister unit. The Tribunal clarified that the lack of credit allowance for capital goods during the relevant period negated the argument of a revenue-neutral situation.

Basis for quantification of expenses: The Revenue failed to provide the basis for asserting that certain expenses were not considered in the assessable value. Despite the appellant's repeated requests for data on expenses like depreciation and financial charges, the Revenue not only refused to provide the information but also rejected the demands for clarification without sufficient grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the demands could not be sustained due to the lack of concrete basis for rejecting the Chartered Accountant's certificate and quantifying the expenses. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment was pronounced on 19/01/2017.