2019 (5) TMI 1169 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of value of scrap in assessable value - Job-work - Demand of Differential Duty - Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - In terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the manufacturer of final product is permitted to take credit on inputs received in its factory and send the same to the job worker for the manufacture of intermediate product, for use in the manufacture of the ultimate final product. In such a situation, the job worker who manufactures the intermediate product is not liable to pay any duty - Thus, the principal manufacturer M/s Tata Motors could have followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 4(5)(a) ibid and the appellant could have manufactured the finished product out of the inputs supplied on job work basis and return the same without payment of duty. In such eventuality, the differential duty cannot be demanded in terms of the procedures prescribed under the Cenvat statute. The value of scrap need not be included in assessable value of the product and cleared by the job worker. Valuation - inclusion of the amortized value of moulds and dies in the job charges - HELD THAT - The appellant had accepted the duty liability and not contested the duty demand confirmed against it - thus the duty demand on such ground has been rightly confirmed by the authorities below. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on sale of scrap items.
2. Inclusion of amortized value of moulds and dies in job charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on sale of scrap items
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts on a job work basis for a principal manufacturer. The dispute arose when the department contended that the appellant had not discharged the proper duty liability on scrap generated from free supplied raw materials. The department initiated proceedings seeking recovery of short paid central excise duty, interest, and penalty. The original authority confirmed a substantial duty demand along with penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. The appellant argued that they had considered the cost of raw materials in determining assessable value, and the duty on scrap was paid based on transaction value. They cited relevant tribunal and Supreme Court judgments to support their position. The Revenue, however, supported the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the steel items received were duty paid, and the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit and passed on the benefit to the principal manufacturer. It was established that the principal manufacturer could have followed procedures under Cenvat Credit Rules, and no differential duty was required. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments favoring the appellant's position and set aside the demand on scrap items.

Issue 2: Inclusion of amortized value of moulds and dies in job charges
Regarding the inclusion of amortized value of moulds and dies in job charges, the appellant had accepted the duty liability without contesting it. The impugned order confirmed the duty demand on this ground, and the appellant did not raise any specific grounds to contest it. The Tribunal found that the duty demand on this issue was rightly confirmed by the authorities below. Consequently, the impugned order was sustained on the inclusion of amortized value of moulds and dies in job charges. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand related to the sale of scrap items but upholding the demand concerning the inclusion of amortized value of moulds and dies in job charges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the issue of duty liability on scrap items, citing relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions. However, the duty demand related to the inclusion of amortized value of moulds and dies in job charges was upheld as the appellant had not contested it.