2017 (11) TMI 1465 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - valuation of malt manufactured by the assessee and cleared back to the principal manufacturer - job-work - captive consumption - clarification F. No. 6/15/2009-CX-I dated 31.03.2010 issued by CBEC - Held that - the CBEC circular cannot be followed for determining the value of the malt cleared by the job worker to principal manufacturer - decided against Revenue. Valuation - job-work - Department was of the view that the value of sprout which emerges during the process of making malt and cleared out by the job worker (assessee) is required to be added to the value of the malt for payment of excise duty - Held that - appellant has sold the sprouts outside to the third party and retained the sale proceeds, then the value is required to be added to that of the goods, the malt supplied to the principal manufacturer and it attracts excise duty - decided against Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of manufactured malt under Rule 10A and inclusion of sprout value for excise duty.

Valuation of Malt: The department argued for valuation under Rule 10A(iii) based on a CBEC circular, but the Tribunal rejected this approach citing a previous decision. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the demand for differential duty, emphasizing that Rule 8 applies only if goods are consumed by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the Tribunal's previous decision and the Supreme Court's affirmation of that decision.

Inclusion of Sprout Value: The dispute centered on whether the value of sprouts emerging during malt production, sold to a third party by the job worker, should be added to the malt's value for excise duty. The appellant argued that the sprout value was included in the assessable value and should not be added. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the value of retained scrap is not included in the assessable value of goods cleared by a job worker to the principal manufacturer. The Revenue argued that since the sprouts were sold to a third party, their value should be added. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, stating that when the sprouts were sold outside and the proceeds retained by the appellant, their value must be added to the malt's value for excise duty.

Conclusion: The appeals by both the department and the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision on both valuation issues, emphasizing the inapplicability of the CBEC circular for malt valuation and the requirement to add the sprout value to the malt's value for excise duty when sold to a third party.