2019 (4) TMI 1642 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - related party transaction - inter-connected undertakings - Section 4 (3) (b) (l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the appellants and M/s. Cosmos Castings (I) Ltd. and others, as above, are related/ inter-connected undertakings and can be so considered merely on the basis of them being mentioned as Related Party Disclosure in their balance sheets? HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 has been applied in a situation where the buyer is related either in sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For attracting the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 the goods should be sold to related person as specified either in sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act and not to anyone else. Once law falsifies the liability of appellant in given circumstances, mere mention by appellant in its record that too in balance sheet only will not create any liability. More so when there is no effort by the Department to show whether price at which the duty liability has been discharged is influenced by relationship between the parties. Penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Penalty can be imposed only for contumacious conduct or for willful infringement of law, which are conspicuously absent on the part of the appellant in the facts of the present case. For the said reason only, the Department was not even entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation - penalty also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant evaded Central Excise duty by selling finished goods to related units?
- Whether the appellant and related units can be considered related/inter-connected undertakings?
- Whether the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules were correctly applied?
- Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was justified?

Analysis:

1. Evading Central Excise Duty:
The Department alleged that the appellant, a manufacturing company, sold finished goods to related units, leading to Central Excise duty evasion. The Department served a Show Cause Notice proposing duty recovery, which was confirmed in the Order-in-Original and subsequent Order-in-Appeal. The appellant contended that since goods were also sold to unrelated parties, the rules on value determination did not apply. The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's relationship with related units to determine duty liability.

2. Related/Inter-Connected Undertakings:
The Tribunal examined whether the appellant and related units qualified as related/inter-connected undertakings under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant denied such a relationship, while the Department argued for the application of Rule 4(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal scrutinized the definitions of 'related' and 'relative' as per relevant statutes to ascertain the nature of the connections between the parties involved.

3. Application of Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules:
The Tribunal assessed the correct application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, emphasizing that it applies when goods are sold to related persons as specified in Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. The adjudicating authority was criticized for confirming duty under Rule 9 and Rule 8 based on inter-connected undertakings, not specified in Rule 9. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence showing price influence due to relationships and cited case law to support its decision.

4. Justification of Penalty:
Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant, the Tribunal noted that penalties are for willful infringement, which was absent in this case. It was emphasized that penalties require contumacious conduct, which was not demonstrated. The Tribunal concluded that the Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the order imposing penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty liability and penalties imposed. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of a related relationship, incorrect application of valuation rules, and absence of contumacious conduct warranting penalties.