2021 (9) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - section 4 or 4A of CEA - Pressure cookers parts - Notified goods or not - requirement to affix MRP on goods or not - entitlement to abatement claim of 35% - sale of goods to the sister units as well as to the outside parties in open market - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - The facts are not in dispute that the parts of the pressure cookers have been cleared by the appellant from their depots in open market @ MRP less 41.41%. When comparable price is available, then the goods cleared to their sister units are to be assessed on the same value, but in this case, the appellant has cleared the goods to their sister units on higher value i.e. MRP less abatement @35% of the MRP. There are no merit in the impugned orders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty on parts of pressure cookers under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Applicability of abatement on MRP for parts of pressure cookers.
3. Valuation rules and provisions under Section 4 and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Dispute regarding the clearance of parts to sister units for further manufacture.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of pressure cookers and parts thereof, appealed against impugned orders related to the assessment of duty. The dispute revolves around the duty payment on pressure cooker parts under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the applicability of abatement. The appellant claimed an abatement of 35% on MRP for parts cleared to sister units, which was later increased to 41.41% after finalization. The Revenue contended that the abatement claimed was not valid for parts transferred to sister units, leading to the initiation of proceedings resulting in demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant.

2. The appellant argued that pressure cooker parts are not notified items under Section 4A, and they voluntarily affixed MRP for business convenience. They claimed entitlement to the abatement on parts cleared to sister units based on the assessable value used for open market sales. The appellant emphasized that since parts are not notified items, the denial of abatement is unjustified, and duty should only be payable on transaction value, warranting the setting aside of the impugned orders.

3. The Revenue, however, supported the impugned orders, asserting that duty should be paid on the invoice value without deductions as per Valuation Rules 2000 and Section 4(1) of the Act. They argued that the appellant incorrectly assessed the goods under Section 4A when clearing to sister units, which are not for retail sale but for further manufacture. The Revenue highlighted the inapplicability of Revenue neutrality and the potential imposition of penalties on the appellant.

4. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the appellant cleared parts at MRP less 41.41% in the open market but at MRP less 35% to sister units, contrary to the Revenue's stance. Given the availability of comparable prices, the Tribunal concluded that the goods cleared to sister units should be assessed at the same value. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues surrounding the assessment of duty on pressure cooker parts, the applicability of abatement, and the interpretation of valuation rules under the Central Excise Act, 1944, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to overturn the impugned orders in favor of the appellant.