2023 (3) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal sets aside duty demand based on undervaluation, citing precedents on assessable value.

M/s. Techno Packers Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for short paid duty, interest, and penalties related to the alleged undervaluation ... Under-valuation - non-inclusion of cost of free supply materials in the assessable value for payment of excise duty on wooden crates cleared - HELD THAT:- The issue is whether value of free supplies have to be included in the assessable value for payment of central excise duty on the wooden crates cleared by the appellant M/s.Saint Gobain Glass India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. MAKWUDS INDIA P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI - IV [2018 (6) TMI 707 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to consider a similar issue where it was held that while clearing the goods to their principal, the cost of free issue need not be included in the assessable value. The demand of duty alleging that cost of free supply material has to be included in the assessable value cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are whether the value of free supplies should be included in the assessable value for payment of central excise duty on wooden crates cleared by the appellant.Summary:Issue 1 - Inclusion of Value of Free Supplies in Assessable Value:The case involved appellants engaged in manufacturing wooden crates, alleged to have undervalued their final product by not including the value of free materials supplied by M/s.Saint Gobain Glass India Pvt. Ltd. The department raised a demand for short paid duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that the cost of free materials received should not be included in the assessable value, citing precedents such as International Auto Ltd. v. CCE Bihar. The Tribunal, in previous cases like Makwuds India P. Ltd. v. CCE Chennai-IV, had held that the cost of free issue materials supplied by the principal need not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal, following the decision in International Auto Ltd., set aside the demand, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.Issue 2 - Application of Precedents and Legal Interpretations:The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including Commissioner v. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., Lawkim Ltd. v. CCE Pune-II, and others, to support the argument that the cost of free supplied parts should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal also highlighted the decision in the case of Rane Brake Linings Ltd. v. CCE Chennai, where a similar issue was considered. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the precedent set by International Auto Ltd. and Makwuds India P. Ltd. v. CCE Chennai-IV in determining the inclusion of free supplies in the assessable value for excise duty payment.Issue 3 - Interpretation of Legal Precedents and Authorities' Findings:The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, including the reliance on the decision of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Union of India. The Tribunal concluded that the facts of the present case align more closely with the decisions in International Auto Ltd. and Makwuds India P. Ltd. v. CCE Chennai Pune, rather than Burn Standard Co. Ltd. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Dymos Lear Automotive India Ltd. v. CCE Chennai-IV to further support the interpretation that the demand alleging the inclusion of the cost of free supply materials in the assessable value cannot sustain.This judgment delves into the interpretation of legal precedents, specifically regarding the inclusion of the value of free supplies in the assessable value for excise duty payment. By analyzing past decisions and legal arguments, the Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.