2024 (11) TMI 1278 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of captively consumed goods - valuation of goods is required to be determined on the basis of cost of production, as prescribed by the Institute of Cost Works Accountants of India in the Cost Accounting Standard-4 (CAS-4), in accordance with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Section 4 (1)(b) of theCentral Excise Act, 1944 or not - denial of CENVAT credit to recipient sister units - penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellants have themselves computed the differential duty liability and also paid the same along with interest, upon finalization of the books of accounts in form CAS-4 for effecting supply of goods to their sister units. The differential duty was paid and the same was invoiced to the sister units, by issuance of the supplementary invoices. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004, has prescribed various documents, based on which CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer. Sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 9 ibid recognizes supplementary invoice as the proper document for availment of CENVAT credit based thereon. However, there is an embargo being created in the said sub-rule that whenever any additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer of excisable goods on account of any non-levy or short levy, by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of statute, then taking of CENVAT credit of such additional duty is prohibited. In the present case, the books of accounts for the year 2011-2012 were required to be finalized by September, 2012, which was in fact complied with by the appellants inasmuch as such compliance part has not been disputed by the department. Further, we also notice that in the letter dated 15.05.2014, the jurisdictional Range Superintendent had informed his counterpart in the Audit wing, mentioning that the audit para does not appear to be sustainable and that based on the statement along with invoices particulars furnished by the sister units, the draft SCNs were prepared by him. Thus, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants had suppressed any material particulars to the department or indulged into any malpractice, with an intent to evade payment of additional amount of Central Excise duty. In view of the fact that issuance of supplementary invoices by the units in H-25 and B-82/1, are the prescribed documents under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004, denial of the CENVAT credit to the recipient units cannot be questioned inasmuch as there is no element of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement etc., in making payment of such additional duty into the Government exchequer. Therefore, we are also of the considered opinion that taking of CENVAT credit by the recipient units viz., E-60,61,62 and B-82/1 on the basis of the supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturing units is in conformity with the CENVAT statute. There are no merits in the impugned orders, insofar as confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants are concerned - Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside - the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of captively consumed goods based on CAS-4 certificates.
2. Denial of CENVAT credit to recipient sister units.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of captively consumed goods based on CAS-4 certificates
The appellants manufactured motor vehicle parts transferred to sister units for captive consumption. The department alleged undervaluation of goods due to using CAS-4 certificates from an earlier period. The department initiated proceedings, culminating in adjudication orders confirming demands with extended limitation. The appellants argued that they followed industry practice, finalizing accounts in September, paying differential duty in December. The Tribunal noted the appellants paid the differential duty upon finalization of accounts, issuing supplementary invoices. Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allows CENVAT credit based on supplementary invoices. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts or malpractice, setting aside the penalty under Section 11AC.

Issue 2: Denial of CENVAT credit to recipient sister units
The department objected to CENVAT credit availed by sister units on the basis of supplementary invoices, claiming the duty was paid belatedly due to fraud or suppression of facts. Show cause notices were issued, leading to orders denying CENVAT credit. The Tribunal observed that the manufacturing units promptly paid the additional duty upon finalization of accounts, issuing proper supplementary invoices. As there was no fraud or suppression of facts, the denial of CENVAT credit to recipient units was unwarranted. The Tribunal held that the recipient units were eligible for CENVAT credit based on the supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturing units.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC
The Tribunal found no mens rea in the delayed payment of differential duty by the manufacturing units, as they promptly paid upon finalization of accounts. The penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of intent to evade duty. The Tribunal concluded that since the appellants had paid the additional duty without any fraudulent intent, the penalty imposed was unjustified. The impugned orders confirming the demands and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis highlights the Tribunal's findings on the issues of valuation of captively consumed goods, denial of CENVAT credit, and imposition of penalties, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.