2017 (2) TMI 1059 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of notional interest in assessable value - the respondents have paid duty on the ultimate sales price to its dealers/customers - Held that - the notional interest can only be added, in case the respondent valued their goods on cost construction method or if the goods is sold by the respondent to M/s. MFIL at a price lower than the price at which M/s. MFIL sold the vehicle - The present case does not fall under any of these two categories. The respondent paid the duty on the sale price of M/s. MFIL, which includes all the expenditure and profits of respondent as well as of M/s. MFIL. Therefore in such situation nothing left to be further included in the sale value of the M/s. MFIL on which the excise duty was discharged. Notional interest need not be included in assessable value - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether notional interest on advances given by M/s. Mahindra Ford India Ltd. to the appellant is liable to be included in the assessable value of vehicles manufactured by the respondent for M/s. Mahindra Ford India Ltd.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Notional Interest in Assessable Value
The Department contended that notional interest on advances provided by M/s. Mahindra Ford India Ltd. should be included in the assessable value of vehicles manufactured by the respondent. The Department argued that if there was no agreement between the parties, the respondent would have added a profit margin in the cost of manufacture, thereby increasing the assessable value. The Department claimed that the value had been suppressed, justifying the duty demand. However, the respondent argued that the advances given by M/s. MFIL were not relevant for valuation as the duty was discharged based on the sale price of M/s. MFIL, which included all costs and profits. The respondent maintained that the notional interest did not influence the sale price and should not be included.

Issue 2: Compliance with Notification and Valuation Method
The Tribunal examined whether M/s. MFIL complied with the conditions of the exemption from Rule 174 and provided all necessary information for valuation under Section 4 of the Act. It was established that M/s. MFIL furnished the sale price to the respondent, who discharged excise duty accordingly. The Tribunal concluded that notional interest could only be added if the goods were valued differently or sold at a lower price. Since the duty was paid on the sale price of M/s. MFIL, including all costs and profits, there was no basis to include notional interest. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the assessable value was in line with Section 4(1)(a) and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the notional interest on advances did not impact the value on which excise duty was paid, as the duty was discharged based on the sale price inclusive of all costs and profits. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the assessable value aligned with statutory provisions.