2019 (4) TMI 1074 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - pre-recorded cassettes - Board s Circular No.619/10/2002-CX, dt.19.02.2002 - period from October 1997 to May 1999 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the fact that royalty charges have been paid by M/s Pen Audio Pvt. Ltd to various artists, which ought to be included in the assessable value of pre-recorded cassettes manufactured on job work basis by the Appellant. It is the claim of the Appellant that even though they placed on record the balance sheet of Pen Audio Pvt. Ltd for calculation of the assessable value on the basis of the royalty charges paid by M/s Pen Audio Pvt. Ltd., but the same was not considered and the demand was confirmed - Since the issue has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/S. KRCD. (I) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI 2015 (4) TMI 856 - SUPREME COURT , therefore, it is prudent to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order passed by CCE (A), Mumbai regarding assessable value of pre-recorded audio cassettes on job work basis.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellants were manufacturing pre-recorded audio cassettes on a job work basis for a company. Demand notices were issued for not including the value of the master copy in the assessable value, leading to a demand for recovery of duty. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalties imposed.

2. Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals): The appellants appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partially allowed their appeal. Subsequently, the revenue challenged this order before the Tribunal.

3. Remand by Tribunal: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for recalculation of the assessable value based on a specific circular. However, due to a listing error, the matter was remanded again for re-determination of the assessable value, keeping all issues open.

4. Appellant's Submission: The appellant contended that the Adjudicating authority did not consider the balance sheets of the company while confirming the demand. They cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their claim for reconsideration.

5. Revenue's Response: The revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and had no objection to remanding the case for further consideration.

6. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal acknowledged that royalty charges paid by the company should be included in the assessable value. Considering the settled issue by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh, allowing the appellants to present relevant evidence.

7. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court judgment, ensuring all issues are kept open for consideration.