2016 (12) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal partially allowed: liability upheld, interest charges deemed appropriate, penalties waived.

M/s. Sheela Rani Textiles Ltd. Versus CCE, Madurai

M/s. Sheela Rani Textiles Ltd. Versus CCE, Madurai - TMI Issues:1. Liability of waste cotton in the course of manufacture2. Inclusion of notional interest charges in assessable value3. Inclusion of amount received for hank yarn obligation in assessable value4. Differential job work cost suffered duty5. Penalty levied for confusion in determinationsAnalysis:Issue 1:The judgment addresses the liability of waste cotton in the course of manufacture. The argument put forth by the appellant that waste cotton should not be liable to duty is countered by the fact that the waste arose in the hands of the job worker as per the contract conditions. The knowledge of the waste generation was known to both parties, and it was a material fact that needed to be considered in the assessable value of the job worked goods. Thus, the appellant fails to succeed on this count.Issue 2:Regarding the inclusion of notional interest charges in the assessable value, the appellant contests that it was unwarranted as it did not influence the assessable value. However, it was revealed from the materials on record that the financial assistance given by the principal manufacturer to the job worker was for specific purposes related to capital expenditure and machinery upgrade. Therefore, the computation of notional interest on the deposit and its addition to the assessable value was deemed appropriate.Issue 3:The judgment also deals with the inclusion of the amount received for hank yarn obligation in the assessable value. The appellant argued against its inclusion, but the Revenue found that the receipt was related to manufacture, leading to the authority rightly adjudicating that it should be part of the assessable value. Without any substantial reason to disturb this finding, it was confirmed.Issue 4:Concerning the differential job work cost that suffered duty, the appellant referred to a previous decision by the appellate authority. As the direction was given in that regard with proper reasoning, there was no interference necessary in this matter.Issue 5:The final contention of the appellant was the unwarranted penalty levied due to confusion in determinations of assessable value and taxability. The judgment states that when there is no evidence of contumacious conduct by the appellant causing evasion, and all issues involved questions of law, the penalty was deemed unnecessary and may be waived.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed partly based on the analysis and decisions made on each of the issues raised during the proceedings.