2023 (5) TMI 861 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant in Central Excise valuation dispute

M/s. SAIL, Alloy Steel Plant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur

M/s. SAIL, Alloy Steel Plant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Rule 4 vs. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules for valuation of goods cleared to job-workers.2. Legality of ignoring excess duty payments while confirming short payments.3. Revenue neutrality and eligibility of CENVAT Credit.4. Invocation of extended period of limitation for the Show Cause Notice dated 14.09.2007.Summary:1. Applicability of Rule 4 vs. Rule 8:The Appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, argued that the goods supplied to job-workers should be valued as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, using comparable values from sales to independent buyers. The department, however, contended that Rule 8 was applicable, demanding differential excise duty. The Tribunal found the Appellant's methodology for valuation under Rule 4, with adjustments for grades of materials, to be correct and legally sustainable. Thus, the initial duty paid by the Appellant was deemed correct.2. Ignoring Excess Duty Payments:The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's report categorized transactions and compared excise duty paid versus duty payable. The Commissioner confirmed demands only for short payments, ignoring excess payments. The Tribunal held this approach as legally erroneous, emphasizing that adjustments for excess payments should have been allowed. The Tribunal cited several precedents supporting this view, including cases like Pr. Commr. of CGST & CE Vs. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. and Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I.3. Revenue Neutrality and CENVAT Credit:The Appellant argued that the issue was revenue-neutral since the job-worker could claim CENVAT Credit on the duty paid by the Appellant, and the Appellant could further avail of the credit on duty paid by the job-worker. The Tribunal agreed, referencing cases like CCE, Pune Vs. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., and CCE & C. Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos Abs Ltd., affirming that in such scenarios, the demand is not sustainable.4. Extended Period of Limitation:The Appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 14.09.2007 was time-barred as the department was already aware of the issue from a previous notice dated 04.08.2005. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, citing Supreme Court judgments in Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Coll. Of CE, AP, and Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, which held that extended periods could not be invoked when the department was aware of the facts.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that the Appellant had correctly paid duty under Rule 4 and had, in fact, paid more duty than demanded. Consequently, the demands for penalty and interest were also unsustainable. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.