2025 (4) TMI 753 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - valuation method used by the Appellant for inter-unit transfer of goods - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Bhubaneswar-II 2023 (5) TMI 720 - CESTAT KOLKATA this Bench has held The duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to their sister unit. This the entire exercise is revenue neutral. On an identical issue in the case of M/s H. V. Transmission Ltd. v. CCE Jamshedpur 2023 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT KOLKATA this Bench has held that We find that the issue is squarely covered by the cited decisions of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that when the duty paid by the parent unit is eligible as Cenvat Credit to the receiving unit the entire proceeding becomes revenue neutral. Conclusion - Tthe valuation method used by the Appellant is consistent with legal precedents and that the principle of revenue neutrality is applied rendering the demand for differential duty unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the valuation method used by the Appellant for inter-unit transfer of goods was correct under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.
Whether the demand for differential duty is sustainable given the alleged undervaluation of goods during inter-unit transfers.
Whether the case falls under the principle of revenue neutrality, thereby affecting the sustainability of the demand.
Whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked in issuing the Show Cause Notice.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Valuation Method under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules

The relevant legal framework involves Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, which mandates that excisable goods used captively are to be valued at 110% of the cost of production. The Appellant argued that the actual cost of raw materials should be considered for valuation, contrary to the method adopted by the Revenue, which used the assessable value declared in invoices.

The Tribunal examined whether the Appellant's method of using the cost certificate was in compliance with Rule 8. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's valuation method was consistent with previous rulings in similar cases, where the actual cost of production was deemed appropriate for determining assessable value.

Sustainability of Differential Duty Demand

The Tribunal assessed the evidence and findings regarding the alleged undervaluation of goods. The Revenue contended that the Appellant undervalued goods by not using the invoice-declared value, leading to a shortfall in duty payment. However, the Appellant countered that the demand was unsustainable due to revenue neutrality.

The Tribunal applied the law to the facts, considering precedents where revenue neutrality was a decisive factor. It found that since the duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to its other units, the entire exercise was revenue neutral, negating any loss to the exchequer.

Revenue Neutrality

The Tribunal gave significant weight to the principle of revenue neutrality, as established in prior decisions, including the Appellant's own case. The Tribunal referenced the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II, where it was held that no demand is sustainable in revenue-neutral situations.

The Tribunal reasoned that when the duty paid by one unit is available as credit to another, the financial impact on the revenue is neutralized. This reasoning was supported by similar findings in other cases, such as M/s H. V. Transmission Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur.

Extended Period of Limitation

The Tribunal also considered whether the extended period of limitation was applicable. The Appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice was issued belatedly, despite the Department having access to all relevant information through monthly returns.

The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument, noting that in revenue-neutral cases, the question of suppression does not arise, thereby undermining the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the following significant holdings:

"The Appellant has argued that the entire exercise is revenue neutral as the duty paid by them will be available as credit for their sister unit. We agree with this view of the Appellant. The duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to their sister unit. This the entire exercise is revenue neutral."
It was determined that the valuation method used by the Appellant was consistent with legal precedents and that the principle of revenue neutrality applied, rendering the demand for differential duty unsustainable.
The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was inappropriate given the circumstances of revenue neutrality and the availability of information to the Department.

The Tribunal's final determination was to allow the appeal, granting the Appellant eligibility for consequential relief as per law.

← Previous Next →