2018 (9) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Demand for Differential Duty on Undervalued Goods, Rejects Lack of Knowledge Argument

M/s. Agri Care Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat

The Tribunal upheld the department's demand for differential duty on undervalued goods manufactured for a principal, rejecting the appellant's argument of ... Valuation - Job-Work - valuation of the goods adopted is on the basis of cost data provided by the principal - time limitation - Held that:- There is no dispute on the fact that the goods impugned in the present case were undervalued as the cost of raw material was wrongly intimated by the principal to the appellant. Time limitation - Held that:- In this case, the appellant were very much in the knowledge regarding the actual cost of the raw material which is appearing in the bills of entry. Therefore, even if the principal have intimated the wrong figures of raw material cost, the appellant by taking reasonable steps, could have found out the correct cost of the raw material and the mistake could have been avoided. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was unaware of the cost of the raw material used in the manufacture of goods on job work basis for their principal - extended period was rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues: Valuation of goods based on incorrect data provided by principal, time-barred demand, availability of Cenvat credit, applicability of judgmentsValuation of Goods:The appellant was engaged in manufacturing goods on a job work basis for the principal, with the valuation based on cost data provided by the principal. However, an investigation revealed that the principal had provided incorrect cost data, resulting in the undervaluation of goods. The department issued a demand for the differential duty, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal).Time-Barred Demand:The appellant argued that they had valued the goods in good faith based on the cost certificate provided by the principal, claiming they were unaware of the actual raw material cost and therefore, there was no suppression of facts. They contended that the demand was time-barred and the discrepancy was limited to two consignments, with no dispute in other transactions. The appellant also highlighted their availing of Cenvat credit based on duty paying bills of entries for raw materials.Applicability of Judgments:The appellant cited various judgments to support their case, emphasizing that they relied on the cost data provided by the principal, similar to the cases in the cited judgments. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had access to bills of entry showing the actual raw material cost, indicating they could have discovered the correct cost and avoided the mistake. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of bonafide valuation and upheld the extended period invoked due to the appellant's knowledge of the actual raw material cost.Decision:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not unaware of the raw material cost due to the bills of entry in their possession, despite the incorrect data provided by the principal. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the appellant's failure to demonstrate their lack of knowledge regarding the raw material cost used in manufacturing goods for the principal. The judgments cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant in the context of the present case, given the appellant's access to actual cost information.