2017 (3) TMI 1085 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals allowed, valuation method upheld, cenvat credit denied unsustainably, penalty imposition dismissed

The appeals filed by the appellant/assessee were allowed, setting aside the differential duty confirmed by the Original Authority. The Tribunal held that ... Valuation of goods - goods cleared from one unit to another unit of the same company - Held that: - if there are independent sales of similar items, then the provisions of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 will not apply - In the present case, we note that all the excisable goods are not cleared for captive use by Raigarh Unit. Admittedly, there are independent sales and in such situation, the value of independent sales should be considered as a transaction value for excisable goods cleared on transfer to appellant‟s own unit in Raigarh - there is no need for cost based value invoking the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules - appeal allowed. CENVAT credit - supplementary invoices - Held that: - he issue of availing credit on supplementary invoices is no more relevant as the differential duty demand against the Raipur Unit is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:Valuation of goods cleared from one unit to another unit of the same company, differential central excise duty, denial of cenvat credit on differential duty.Analysis:1. Valuation of Goods Cleared:The case involved three interconnected appeals concerning the valuation of goods transferred between two manufacturing units of the same company. The Revenue objected to the valuation method adopted by the Raipur Unit, proposing a different valuation under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. The Original Authority confirmed the differential duty based on the cost of production. However, the appellant argued that the units are not related parties and followed the correct valuation method based on sales to independent buyers. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that if there are independent sales of similar items, Rule 8 of Valuation Rules does not apply. As all goods were not cleared for captive use, the value of independent sales should be considered. The finding that the units were related parties was deemed fallacious, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.2. Denial of Cenvat Credit:The Raigarh Unit's appeal focused on the denial of cenvat credit on the differential duty paid by the Raipur Unit. The Original Authority denied the credit citing Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, since the demand against the Raipur Unit was set aside, the denial of credit to the Raigarh Unit was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions supporting the flow of credit on supplementary invoices for inter-unit transfers of excisable goods. It was concluded that the credit availed by the Raigarh Unit on valid documents could not be denied under Rule 9(1)(b), and the impugned order on this ground was set aside.3. Penalty Imposition:The Revenue had filed an appeal against the non-imposition of penalty by the Original Authority. However, since the demand itself was found to be unsustainable, the appeal by the Revenue did not survive and was dismissed. The Original Authority's observation that no penalty was warranted due to the appellant calculating and paying the differential duty on their own was noted.In conclusion, the appeals filed by the appellant/assessee were allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The judgment clarified the correct valuation method for goods transferred between units of the same company and upheld the right to cenvat credit on valid documents for inter-unit transfers.