2014 (10) TMI 19 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer vindicated in excise duty dispute over goods classification, appellate authority decision overturned

The Tribunal upheld the manufacturer's claim that goods cleared to their sister unit were semi-finished, correctly discharging excise duty liability. The ... Valuation - Clearance of semi finished goods to other unit - Demand of differential duty - Difference in declared price - The price declared for clearance to the Daman unit is less by ₹ 3/- per unit sold. At the Daman unit after undertaking the process of printing, embossing, etc., the finished products are cleared by including the cost of printing, embossing, etc. and at the price which is equal to such goods cleared from the unit at Thane. The department's contention is that there is no evidence that the goods cleared to the Daman unit are semi-finished or partially processed - Held that:- in view of the categorical finding by the adjudicating authority that the unit at Daman had discharged excise duty liability after undertaking the processing on an additional value of ₹ 3/- per unit, we uphold the appellant's claim that what they had cleared to Daman unit was semi-finished PVC filament/sheets without printing or embossing - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. AT/M-III/55/2004 dated 30/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III.2. Discrepancy in duty demand for PVC sheets/films cleared to independent buyers versus sister unit at Daman.3. Allegation of undervaluation and incorrect discharge of excise duty liability.4. Review of the Commissioner's order and subsequent appeal by the jurisdictional Commissioner before the lower appellate authority.5. Lack of fresh grounds in the review of the Commissioner's order and repetition of grounds from show cause notices.6. Verification of facts regarding clearance of semi-finished goods to the Daman unit.7. Adjudicating authority's conclusion based on the report from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner at Daman.Analysis:The appeal in question challenges the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III, which set aside the dropping of proceedings initiated under 19 show cause notices and confirmed the duty demand raised. The appellant, a manufacturer of PVC sheets/films, cleared products to independent buyers after processing and payment of duty. However, they also cleared similar products to their sister unit at Daman at a lower price, leading to a dispute over excise duty liability. The lower appellate authority initially remanded the matter for verification, where it was found that the Daman unit had discharged excise duty liability correctly by adding a specific value per unit sold. The adjudicating authority then dropped the proceedings based on this verification.Subsequently, the jurisdictional Commissioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority, repeating the grounds from the show cause notices. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal without fresh grounds, leading to the present challenge. The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority's decision lacked basis as the facts had been previously considered and remanded. The adjudicating authority's findings, supported by the report from the Assistant Commissioner at Daman, confirmed that the Daman unit had discharged the excise duty liability correctly. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim that the goods cleared to the Daman unit were semi-finished, without printing or embossing, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.