2024 (1) TMI 718 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - related parties for captive consumption in relation to the manufacture of other excisable goods - Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Circular No. 643/34/2002- CX dated 01.07.2002 - HELD THAT - The show cause notice has not specifically alleged that under which category appellant and their buyer are related for purpose of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For this reason itself the entire proceeding is ab initio illegal and not sustainable. Moreover, the appellant is a public limited company and buyer is a separate independent private limited company. Even though the buyer is one of the group company of the appellant that alone cannot be a reason for establishing the relationship between the appellant and the buyer - the payment of duty made by the appellant on the transaction value is absolutely correct and legal. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the valuation of goods under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, specifically in the context of transactions between related parties for captive consumption.

Comprehensive Details:

Issue 1: Valuation of goods between related parties
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various copper products, had transactions with related parties for captive consumption. The department contended that valuation should be done as per Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and referred to Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. A show cause notice was issued demanding central excise duty, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant's appeal.

Issue 2: Nature of relationship between the appellant and buyers
The appellant argued that the nature of the relationship between them and the buyers was not established in the show cause notice or the adjudication order. They emphasized that being part of the same group of companies does not automatically imply a related person status. Citing a Tribunal decision in the case of Mother Dairy Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, the appellant contended that there was no basis for confirming the demand.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice failed to specifically allege the relationship category between the appellant and the buyer for valuation purposes under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the appellant was a public limited company and the buyer was a separate private limited company, being part of the same group did not establish a related person status. Relying on the precedent of Mother Dairy case, the Tribunal concluded that the proceeding by the Revenue was illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and affirming the correctness and legality of the duty payment based on the transaction value.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of establishing a clear relationship between parties for valuation purposes under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that mere group affiliation does not necessarily imply a related person status for valuation of goods.