2016 (3) TMI 849 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT rules in favor of plastic pipe manufacturers on valuation & captively consumed pipes

Kriti Industries (India) Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Indore And Vice-Versa

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal by the plastic pipe manufacturing appellants, ruling in their favor on the valuation of ... Valuation adopted by the assessee in respect of the exempted pipes cleared - the total value realized by the assessee should be considered for quantification of 8% and since this amount of 8% reversed in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) is not a tax, no deduction is available while arriving at the value for the same - Held that:- The Original Authority found that the Cenvat Credit Rules talks about total price, the amount of 8% which is not an excise duty cannot be deducted from the total price consideration. We notice that the appellants were bound by provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) to reverse an amount of 8%/10%, when they clear exempted products. This is a statutory obligation. It is an admitted fact that this is not an excise duty. However, this statutory payment is recovered by the appellant from the buyers. In this connection, we find that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut vs. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills (2001 (8) TMI 119 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.) examined the scope of the terms “other taxes” mentioned in Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of Central Excise Act for exclusion from assessable value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that taxes as such are not defined in the Central Excise Act. If the expression “tax” is to be understood in the absence of any definition, it would certainly cover any levy. It was held that any compulsory exaction made under an enactment is a duty or impost and such impost must be held to be in the nature of tax covered by the aforesaid provisions. In the present situation also we find that the reversal of 8% or 10% amount on the value of exempted goods is a statutory requirement and when the assessee collected the same from the buyer, the same cannot be included while arriving at the value for calculating that 8/10%. Whether or not the assessee is correct in paying 8/10% of value of captively consumed HDPE pipes - Held that:- As we find that in the assessees own case the matter was decided in their favour earlier vide Final Order No.52258/2015 dated 10.07.2015. The Tribunal held that when the appellant assessee is paying 10% of the value of HDPE pipes used for manufacturing sprinkler system they are not required to pay 10% of value of the sprinkler system, relying on the earlier decision in the appellant/ assessees own case. Thus we find that the demand for an amount of 8% or 10% on the sprinkler system is not justified. Issues: Valuation of exempted pipes under Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules and payment of 8/10% on captively consumed HDPE pipes.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, two appeals were considered against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore, regarding the valuation of exempted pipes and the payment of 8/10% on captively consumed HDPE pipes. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing plastic pipes, argued that they had paid the required 8% amount on captively used HDPE pipes as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, without the need to calculate and pay on the sprinkler system value. They cited a Tribunal decision in their favor. The Department contended that the 8/10% amount charged on exempted goods should be added in valuation and that the demand was not time-barred due to lack of prior information from the assessee. The Tribunal analyzed the issues, first addressing the valuation of exempted pipes. It found that the amount collected by the assessee for the reversal of Cenvat credit need not be added separately to the gross value, following the Commissioner (Appeals)'s earlier decision in the assessee's case. The Revenue argued that the total value realized should be considered, but the Tribunal held that the reversed amount is not a tax and cannot be deducted. The statutory obligation to reverse the amount when clearing exempted products was emphasized, drawing on the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'taxes.' On the second issue of payment on captively consumed HDPE pipes, the Tribunal upheld its earlier decision in favor of the assessee, stating that the demand for 8/10% on the sprinkler system was not justified based on previous rulings. Consequently, the appeal by the appellants was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 10.03.2016 by the Tribunal.