2017 (7) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - credit availed on common inputs used for dutiable as well as exempted goods - Windmill Tower - Held that - The appellants in the present case though have reversed the proportionate credit along with 8% of labour charges, it is contended by the department that they have to reverse 8% of value of exempted goods after including the value of free supply items. In view thereof, we find that it is fit to remand the issue to the adjudicating authority to consider whether the appellants have reversed credit as required under Rule 57CC - matter on remand. Valuation - includibility - charges to the tune of ₹ 59 lakhs in respect of System Engineering charges in the value of Coal Ship Loader - Held that - this issue requires to be remanded for verification of the appellant s claim that the design element in the manufacture of Ship Loader has already been included for payment of duty. The charges for the System Engineering amounting to ₹ 59.00 lakhs sought to be included by Revenue relates to aspects such as Port layout, Jetty position etc. We are of the view that the appellants should be given an opportunity to produce documents to establish their claim - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-inclusion of value of free supplied raw materials in exempted goods.
2. Under valuation of Paint Shop by not including design and drawings charges.
3. Improper valuation of Coal Ship Loader by not including System Engineering charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing heavy engineering items and availing Cenvat credit. The first issue was regarding the non-inclusion of the value of free supplied raw materials in Windmill Tower, an exempted good. The appellant had reversed a proportionate amount of credit and labor charges but did not include the value of free supply items. The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue to ascertain if the credit reversal complied with Rule 57CC.

Issue 2:
The second issue involved the under valuation of Paint Shop due to the exclusion of design and drawing charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded this issue to the lower authority to determine the factual position regarding the design and drawing costs. The appellant had no objection to this remand.

Issue 3:
Regarding the improper valuation of Coal Ship Loader for not including System Engineering charges, the appellant argued that the design element had already been included in the pricing, making the System Engineering charges unnecessary. The Tribunal deemed it necessary to remand this issue for verification of the appellant's claim that the design element had been considered in the duty payment.

The Tribunal remanded the appeal to the original authority for denovo adjudication, keeping all issues open. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellants with an opportunity to establish their claims and produce necessary documents for verification.