2015 (3) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Glass Bottle Manufacturing Assessable Value

CCE, Pondicherry Versus M/s. Owens Brockway (I) Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case involving assessable value determination for glass bottle manufacturing. The Revenue's ... Valuation of goods - non-inclusion of insurance and freight charges and other essential ingredients in the assessable value - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) reproduced the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate dated 14.09.2004 and the worksheet details of duty liability. It was prepared on rectification of audited balance sheet. Revenue had not refuted the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and worksheet with any material in the grounds of appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the original authority proceeded on the basis of the figures given by the Respondents but the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of the figures given by the Chartered Accountant. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) findings are on the basis of the figures given by the Chartered Accountant with worksheet, which were not refuted by the Revenue and cannot be discarded without any cogent material. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Assessable value determination including freight and carrying cost, inclusion of profit element in assessable value, Chartered Accountant's certificate validity.Assessable value determination:The Respondents were engaged in manufacturing glass bottles and received unprinted bottles from another unit, printed them with a buyer's brand, and cleared them after paying central excise duty. Show Cause Notices were issued for non-inclusion of insurance, freight charges, and other costs in the assessable value. The adjudicating authority found the assessable value adopted by the Respondents to be lower and confirmed a duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, reducing the demand. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the adjudicating authority considered the profit element and that various charges were reduced without proper justification. The Tribunal noted the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and worksheet used by the Commissioner (Appeals) which were not refuted by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeals.Inclusion of profit element in assessable value:The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority included various charges in the assessable value, considering the profit element. The Revenue argued that the charges were reduced without proper reasons or documentary proof. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the Chartered Accountant's figures, which were not challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that without cogent material, the Commissioner (Appeals) findings cannot be discarded. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals.Chartered Accountant's certificate validity:The Tribunal considered the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and worksheet used by the Commissioner (Appeals) in determining the duty liability. The Revenue did not provide any material to refute the Chartered Accountant's figures. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) findings were based on the Chartered Accountant's figures, which remained unchallenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeals.