9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 325 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - CAS-4 duly certified - administrative cost and profit - includibility - Rule 6 (B) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1975 - Held that - appellant did not submit CAS-4 certified data before the Commissioner and consequently the Commissioner in the impugned order has compared certain elements of the cost with those declared in the original work-sheet submitted along with the price declaration and come to the conclusion that the data submitted in the unsigned work-sheet is incorrect - it was wrong on part of the appellant to submit an unsigned work-sheet of CAS-4 before Commissioner. Now the appellants have submitted the said data duty certified. The same was not submitted before adjudicating authority matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority to re-examine in light of the CAS-4 certificate now submitted - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Determination of assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Rules. 2. Submission of unsigned work-sheet and discrepancies in the Cost Accountant Certificate. 3. Comparison of declared value with CAS-4 guidelines. 4. Rejection of unsigned work-sheet and remand for re-examination based on CAS-4 certificate. Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Rules The case involved M/s Permanent Magnets Ltd. clearing excisable goods to their sister unit at Daman. The Assistant Director found shortcomings in the price declaration, leading to a demand of duty for a specific period. The Tribunal earlier remanded the matter, emphasizing the importance of considering administrative costs and profit in determining the value under Rule 6(b)(ii). The Tribunal directed a re-examination based on CAS-4 guidelines, which were to be applied retrospectively. The subsequent revision of the demand was based on discrepancies in the submitted work-sheet, resulting in a revised demand and penalty. Issue 2: Submission of unsigned work-sheet and discrepancies in the Cost Accountant Certificate During the adjudication process, the appellant submitted unsigned copies of the Cost Accountant Certificate under CAS-4. The appellant argued that the assessable value declared for duty payment was higher than the value determined as per CAS-4 certificate. It was contended that the Commissioner's determination of value was incorrect as it did not align with CAS-4 guidelines. The appellant later submitted a properly certified CAS-4 before the Tribunal, rectifying the initial submission issues. Issue 3: Comparison of declared value with CAS-4 guidelines The Commissioner, in the impugned order, compared elements of the cost with the original work-sheet and found discrepancies due to the submission of an unsigned work-sheet. The failure to provide a signed CAS-4 certificate led to the rejection of the initial data. The Tribunal noted the appellant's error in submitting an unsigned work-sheet and emphasized the necessity of providing a properly certified CAS-4 for accurate assessment based on guidelines. Issue 4: Rejection of unsigned work-sheet and remand for re-examination based on CAS-4 certificate The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-examination in light of the now submitted CAS-4 certificate. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of accurate and signed documentation for proper assessment under CAS-4 guidelines. The case underscored the significance of following procedural requirements and providing complete and verified data for excise duty determination. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, Tribunal's observations, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for re-examination based on proper documentation and adherence to CAS-4 guidelines.
|
