2018 (6) TMI 1073 - AT - Central Excise

Excise Duty Appeal Success: Sprouts Sale Proceeds Included in Valuation

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the Department incorrectly calculated excise duty by not including the sale proceeds of sprouts ... Valuation - Job work - inclusion of cost of sprouts in assessable value - manufacturing of barley malt on job work basis - whether the cost of sprouts was included by the appellant while discharging his excise liability? - Rule 8 of CER - Held that:- In the case of Campco Chocolate Factory, [2010 (6) TMI 383 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] it was held that in case the sale proceeds from sale of husk is retained by the job worker while paying duty it already included in the value of product manufactured as the cost of raw material no question of adding the value of husk in the value of intermediate product cleared by the job worker to principal manufacturer arise. Allegation of additional consideration are held as not sustainable. The department has wrongly invoked rule 8 of the valuation and has wrongly calculated the differential duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Valuation of excise duty on malt processed by the appellant.2. Application of Central Excise Valuation Rules.3. Inclusion of sale proceeds of sprouts in excise duty valuation.4. Interpretation of relevant case laws.Analysis:Issue 1: Valuation of excise duty on malt processed by the appellantThe case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of excise duty on malt processed by the appellant. The Department alleged that the appellant had not included the value of sprouts/roots in the excise duty valuation, leading to a demand for Central Excise duty and penalty. The appellant argued that the excise duty was paid after proper valuation, including the cost of entire barley used in the manufacturing process, which covered sprouts and other wastage. The appellant's Director's deposition supported this claim.Issue 2: Application of Central Excise Valuation RulesThe appellant contended that the Department wrongly applied Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The appellant emphasized that the excise duty was paid in accordance with the valuation formula established by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for allegedly ignoring the appellant's clear deposition and misapplying the valuation rules.Issue 3: Inclusion of sale proceeds of sprouts in excise duty valuationThe crux of the matter was whether the appellant had sold sprouts to third parties and whether the sale proceeds were included in the excise duty valuation. The Tribunal noted that if the sprouts were sold outside and the sale proceeds were retained by the appellant, the value needed to be added to the goods for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant had included the sale proceeds of sprouts in the valuation, which was a crucial factor in determining the excise duty liability.Issue 4: Interpretation of relevant case lawsThe Tribunal analyzed previous case laws cited by both parties. The Department relied on a Tribunal decision involving a similar scenario where the sale proceeds of by-products were required to be added to the goods' value for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal differentiated the present case by considering whether the appellant had included the sale proceeds in the valuation. The Tribunal also referred to other cases to support the argument that if the sale proceeds were already included in the valuation, the Department's invocation of Rule 8 for calculating the differential duty was incorrect.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Department had wrongly calculated the excise duty by not considering the inclusion of sale proceeds of sprouts by the appellant in the valuation. The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal and nullifying the demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant.