2014 (3) TMI 44 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders reassessment of goods valuation for M/s. Leamak vs. ITC Limited

M/s. Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Limited and M/s. ITC Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Ahmedabad

M/s. Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Limited and M/s. ITC Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Ahmedabad - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 575 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Whether M/s. Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Limited and M/s. ITC Limited are related persons under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Appropriate method for valuation of goods manufactured by M/s. Leamak for M/s. ITC Limited.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Relationship Between M/s. Leamak and M/s. ITC Limited:- The adjudicating authority determined that M/s. Leamak and M/s. ITC Limited are related persons as per Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to their mutual interest in each other's business. This conclusion was based on several factors, including:- Agreements between the parties specifying the supply of raw materials and machinery by M/s. ITC Limited to M/s. Leamak.- M/s. ITC Limited's rights to inspect and supervise the manufacturing process at M/s. Leamak's premises.- Financial transactions such as interest-free loans and nominal rent for machinery provided by M/s. ITC Limited to M/s. Leamak.- The appellants argued against this determination, asserting that the mutuality of interest should be assessed based on financial gains. They contended that the supply of machinery and deputation of personnel were intended to ensure product quality and meet production requirements, not to establish a financial interest in each other's business.- The appellants cited various case laws to support their argument, including:- Tungbhadra Industries Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad.- Automotive Axles vs. CCE, Hyderabad.- Motor Industries Company Limited vs. CCE, Bangalore.- Ujjagar Prints vs. UOI.- The Revenue countered that the relationship between M/s. Leamak and M/s. ITC Limited indicated mutual interest, relying on cases such as Bee Pee Coating Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara.2. Valuation of Goods:- The core issue was whether the valuation of goods manufactured by M/s. Leamak for M/s. ITC Limited should be done under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, by treating them as related persons.- The Tribunal examined the provisions of Rule 9 and Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which pertain to the valuation of goods when sold to or through related persons.- The Tribunal concluded that the mutuality of interest between M/s. Leamak and M/s. ITC Limited was not established. It noted that while M/s. Leamak had a financial interest in obtaining work from M/s. ITC Limited, there was no evidence of financial gain or flow back to M/s. ITC Limited from M/s. Leamak.- The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Ujagar Prints case, highlighting differences such as the supply of all raw materials and machinery by M/s. ITC Limited and the restriction on M/s. Leamak from manufacturing for other clients.- Given these distinctions, the Tribunal held that the valuation of goods could not be based on the principles laid down in the Ujagar Prints case. Instead, it directed the adjudicating authority to determine the value of the goods under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.Conclusion:- The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, instructing the adjudicating authority to reassess the valuation of goods manufactured by M/s. Leamak for M/s. ITC Limited under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellants were to be given an opportunity to present their case in the de novo proceedings before a final decision was made.