2025 (6) TMI 840 - AT - Central Excise

Taxpayer Prevails: Voluntary Duty Payment and Lack of Evidence Leads to Penalty Reversal and Duty Demand Quashing

M/s. Schneider Electric India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - I

In this excise duty case, the Tribunal partially allowed the appellant's appeal. The court set aside the Department's demand for Rs. 6,01,051/- and ... Valuation of goods - correctness of assessable value arrived as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 for the stock transferred goods - CAS-4 method not followed in arriving at the cost of production - demand of differential duty amount of Rs. 6,21,940/- along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant in the appeal paper book has calculated the amount of duty paid during the period April 2010 to August 2010 claiming excess payment of Rs. 2,92,094/-. Even though this calculation was given to the learned Commissioner, however, the same was not addressed in the impugned order. It is found that they have already discharged the duty liability for the period October 2010 to December 2011 and there is no liability for the period April 2010 to August 2010 as excess duty has been paid. The Department in the impugned order has not justified as to how the differential amount of Rs. 6,01,051/- arose when the detailed differential duty of Rs. 1,15,09,310/- had been furnished by the appellant. In these circumstances, the confirmation of demand of said amount of Rs. 6,01,051/- cannot be sustained. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- It is found that the appellant has been discharging duty during the period by applying the methodology under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules without adopting CAS-4 method which later recalculated and the differential duty was paid on the basis of CAS-4 method with interest, therefore, imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Conclusion - i) The Department in the impugned order has not justified as to how the differential amount of Rs. 6,01,051/- arose when the detailed differential duty of Rs. 1,15,09,310/- had been furnished by the appellant. In these circumstances, the confirmation of demand of said amount of Rs. 6,01,051/- cannot be sustained. ii) The appellant has been discharging duty during the period by applying the methodology under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules without adopting CAS-4 method which later recalculated and the differential duty was paid on the basis of CAS-4 method with interest, therefore, imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed in part. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal were:Whether the differential excise duty amount of Rs. 6,21,940/- along with interest and penalty demanded by the Department is payable by the appellant in respect of stock transferred goods cleared from Unit-I to Unit-II.Whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 is applicable for valuation of stock transferred excisable goods between the appellant's units, particularly regarding the adoption of the CAS-4 method for valuation.Whether the demand for differential duty beyond the amount already paid by the appellant is sustainable, especially considering the limitation period and the payments made prior to issuance of the show-cause notice.Whether the imposition of penalty on the appellant is justified, given that the differential duty along with interest was voluntarily discharged before the show-cause notice.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Applicability of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 and CAS-4 Method for Stock TransfersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The valuation of excisable goods is governed by Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Rule 8 prescribes the method for valuation of goods cleared on stock transfer basis between units of the same manufacturer. The CAS-4 method, a cost accounting standard, is often applied to determine the cost of production for valuation purposes.Precedents cited include the Tribunal's earlier decision in Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE and the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad, where it was held that Rule 8 is not applicable for stock transferred goods, implying that valuation should be based on actual cost rather than the prescribed formula under Rule 8.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant initially computed assessable value based on actual cost of raw materials and overheads for semi-finished goods transferred to Unit-II. Upon departmental insistence, the appellant recalculated the assessable value using the CAS-4 method under Rule 8 and paid differential duty accordingly. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's contention that Rule 8 may not strictly apply to stock transfers, as supported by the cited precedents.Application of Law to Facts: The appellant's recalculation and payment of differential duty using the CAS-4 method was accepted as a corrective measure following the audit observation. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the payment of differential duty as per the CAS-4 method for the period October 2010 to December 2011.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department maintained that Rule 8 valuation was applicable and demanded differential duty accordingly. The appellant contended that the method was not applicable for stock transfers and that they had already paid the correct duty amount. The Tribunal leaned towards the appellant's position, especially given the precedents and the voluntary payment of differential duty.Conclusions: The Tribunal accepted that the appellant's payment of duty based on the CAS-4 method under Rule 8 was adequate and that the valuation approach adopted was reasonable in the circumstances.Issue 2: Legitimacy of Demand for Differential Duty of Rs. 6,01,051/- and LimitationRelevant Legal Framework: The limitation period for demanding excise duty is governed by the provisions of the Central Excise Act, with extended periods available in cases of fraud or suppression. The Department issued a show-cause notice invoking extended limitation for the period April 2010 to December 2011.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had already discharged differential duty of Rs. 1,15,09,310/- with interest of Rs. 30,22,803/- before issuance of the show-cause notice. The Department demanded a total of Rs. 1,21,10,361/-, leaving an unexplained difference of Rs. 6,01,051/-. The appellant submitted that for the period April 2010 to August 2010, excess duty was paid, amounting to Rs. 2,92,094/-, which was not addressed in the impugned order.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Department failed to justify the differential amount of Rs. 6,01,051/- and did not address the appellant's calculation showing excess payment for part of the period. Consequently, the demand for the said amount was unsustainable.Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellant had already paid the differential duty with interest and demonstrated excess payment for part of the period, the Tribunal held that the demand for the additional amount was not justified.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department insisted on the total demand including the Rs. 6,01,051/-, while the appellant disputed this amount and supported their contention with calculations. The Tribunal favored the appellant's position due to lack of departmental justification.Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs. 6,01,051/- with interest, holding it unsustainable.Issue 3: Imposition of PenaltyRelevant Legal Framework: Penalty provisions under the Central Excise Act are invoked for failure to pay duty or for suppression of facts. However, voluntary payment of duty and interest before issuance of show-cause notice is a mitigating factor against penalty imposition.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had discharged the differential duty along with interest voluntarily upon recalculation based on the CAS-4 method before the show-cause notice was issued. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, imposition of penalty was unwarranted.Application of Law to Facts: The appellant's conduct of paying the differential duty and interest voluntarily demonstrated good faith and negated the basis for penalty.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued for penalty imposition due to alleged incorrect valuation and delayed payment. The appellant countered with evidence of voluntary payment and compliance. The Tribunal sided with the appellant.Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held:'The confirmation of demand of said amount of Rs. 6,01,051/- cannot be sustained.''On the issue of imposition of penalty, we find that the appellant has been discharging duty during the period by applying the methodology under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules without adopting CAS-4 method which later recalculated and the differential duty was paid on the basis of CAS-4 method with interest, therefore, imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.'Core principles established include:Voluntary payment of differential duty along with interest before issuance of show-cause notice negates the justification for penalty imposition.Where the Department fails to justify additional differential duty demand beyond the amount already paid with interest, such demand cannot be sustained.Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 may not strictly apply for valuation of stock transferred goods, especially when precedents support valuation based on actual cost or CAS-4 method.Final determinations:The demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 6,01,051/- with interest was set aside.The penalty imposed on the appellant was quashed.The appeal was partly allowed to the extent of modifying the impugned order accordingly.