Revenue neutrality in inter-unit excise valuation defeats differential duty demand where additional duty is fully creditable to recipients.

Valuation-related excise duty on clearances of transformer components to sister units was unsustainable where any additional duty arising from omission of the prescribed Rule 8 profit margin would be fully available as Cenvat credit to recipient units manufacturing dutiable goods. The inter-unit transactions were therefore revenue neutral. Extended limitation could not be invoked because the clearances and duty payments were disclosed in ER-1 returns, and no evidence established suppression or other basis for the extended period. The valuation-based demand could not survive on merits or limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether differential excise duty was sustainable where transformer components were cleared to sister units without adding the prescribed profit margin to cost under Rule 8, although the recipient units could avail full Cenvat credit; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of evidence of suppression where clearances and duty payment were disclosed in ER-1 returns.

Issue (i): Whether differential excise duty was sustainable where transformer components were cleared to sister units without adding the prescribed profit margin to cost under Rule 8, although the recipient units could avail full Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The recipient sister units used the components as inputs for manufacture of dutiable finished goods and were fully entitled to Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the appellant's invoices. Any additional duty payable by the appellant on valuation would therefore have been available as credit to those units, rendering the transaction revenue neutral. The settled revenue-neutrality principle applied to the inter-unit clearances.

Conclusion: The differential duty demand was unsustainable on merits owing to revenue neutrality, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of evidence of suppression where clearances and duty payment were disclosed in ER-1 returns.

Analysis: The appellant paid excise duty and disclosed its clearances through ER-1 returns. No material established suppression, and the Department had not raised queries upon scrutiny of those returns. The prerequisites for invoking the extended limitation period were consequently absent.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation-based demand could not survive either on revenue-neutrality principles or for want of a valid basis to invoke extended limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A valuation-related excise demand on clearances to a related unit is unsustainable where any additional duty is fully creditable to that unit, creating revenue neutrality; extended limitation also requires affirmative evidence of suppression despite statutory disclosures.

---