9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1448 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Rule 8 of the Central Excise(Determination of the price of excisable goods) Valuation Rules, 2000 - M/s GSK manufacturers the raw materials at its different factories and supplied them to the appellants by paying excise duty based on Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules viz. Cost of production plus 10% - Held that - the facts of the case are not in dispute that the cost of raw material supplied to the appellant by GSK were provisionally assessed and the appellant also paid duty provisionally. Later on, the actual value of goods cleared by the GSK was ascertained and the said value was adopted by the appellant for finalisation of their assessment. In that circumstances, the provision of Rule 8 are not applicable for the valuation of goods cleared by GSK for supplying the raw material to the appellant. In fact, when the actual sale price is available, in that circumstances, the provisions of Rule 8 are not applicable. The assessment was required to be finalised taking the cost of raw material supplied by the GSK at actual price arrived for determination of the assessable value at the end of appellant for finalisation of provisional assessment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for determining the assessable value. 2. Correctness of the provisional assessment and final assessment of the excise duty on the finished goods. 3. Authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority. 4. Determination of assessable value based on actual cost vs. notional cost. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000: The primary issue was whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, which mandates adding 10% to the cost of production for valuation, was applicable. The Tribunal held that Rule 8 was not applicable when the actual sale price of the raw materials was available. The Tribunal cited the Larger Bench decision in the case of ITC Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai, which stated that for inter-unit transfers for captive consumption, the actual cost of production should be used without the notional 10%/15% loading as per Rule 8. 2. Correctness of the Provisional and Final Assessment: The Tribunal found that the provisional assessment was based on a notional value (cost plus 10%) and not the actual cost of production of the raw materials supplied by GSK. The final assessment should have been based on the actual cost of production, which was available after the end of the accounting year. The Tribunal concluded that the final assessment of ?83.17 per kg was incorrect as it did not reflect the actual cost of production. 3. Authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to Remand the Case: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) initially remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority, which was later challenged by the Revenue. The CESTAT set aside the remand order, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to remand the case, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Enkay India Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. The case was then remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. 4. Determination of Assessable Value Based on Actual Cost vs. Notional Cost: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessable value should be determined based on the actual cost of production of raw materials supplied by GSK, not on the notional value (cost plus 10%). The Tribunal cited the decision in ITC Ltd., which clarified that the actual cost of production, computed as per CAS-4 standards, should be used for determining the cost of production of goods manufactured by the transferee unit. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the submissions and upheld the incorrect valuation based on notional cost. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing that the assessment should be finalized based on the actual cost of raw materials supplied by GSK, not the notional value as per Rule 8. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached, ensuring that the assessment reflects the actual cost of production.
|
