2026 (1) TMI 1438 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of scrap transferred to sister unit: CAS-4 inapplicable and revenue neutrality with CENVAT credit led to dismissal of revenue demand

Valuation of scrap transferred to a sister unit was addressed, with the CAS-4 costing standard held inapplicable because CAS-4 pertains to manufactured ... Value to be adopted for clearance to sister unit - treatment of scrap as by-product and manufactured goods - revenue neutrality where CENVAT Credit is availed by receiving unit - applicability of CAS-4 costing standard - extended period of limitation and consequences on interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The CAS 4 Costing standard is specifically meant for the goods manufactured, wherein the various costs under different headings like cost of the raw material, labour cost, electricity cost, machinery cost, etc., are all required to be considered to arrive at the CAS 4 value. As to how these parameters can be used in respect of scarp is beyond our comprehension. On this ground itself, the Revenue’s appeal fails. Further, the adjudicating authority has correctly interpreted the provisions to hold that when CENVAT Credit is available to the other unit of the same company, the situation would be that of revenue neutrality. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Cross-Objection filed by the Respondent- Bharat Roll also gets disposed of. We find that the goods cleared by the appellant are the inputs for the receiving units. The receiving units are taking the CENVAT Credit. Therefore, this is clear case of revenue neutrality, with the appellant not gaining any financial benefit by the purported undervaluation of the goods. In the present case, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 05th May, 2011 for the period from April 2006 to March 2010. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the cited Final Order i.e., Final Order [2024 (3) TMI 1425 - CESTAT KOLKATA], is squarely applicable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant. Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. The Cross-objection filed by M/s. Bharat Roll gets disposed of. Issues: (i) Whether CAS-4 costing procedure is applicable for determining assessable value of scrap cleared to sister units and whether the Revenue's appeal against dropping of demand is sustainable; (ii) Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalty for the relevant period can be sustained in view of revenue neutrality and prior Tribunal orders on identical issue.Issue (i): Applicability of CAS-4 costing procedure to determine assessable value of scrap cleared to sister units and validity of Revenue's appeal against dropping of demand.Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether scrap generated in the course of manufacture qualifies as 'goods manufactured' for application of CAS-4 costing, noting that CAS-4 addresses detailed costing elements (raw material, labour, overheads) applicable to manufactured goods. The Tribunal observed that scrap is a by-product generated incidentally in manufacture and that applying CAS-4 parameters to scrap is not practicable. The Tribunal also considered that the receiving unit, being part of the same corporate entity, avails CENVAT credit, making the net effect revenue neutral.Conclusion: The CAS-4 procedure is not applicable to scrap; the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the adjudicating authority's order dropping the demand is upheld in favour of the assessee.Issue (ii): Sustainability of demand of duty, interest and penalty in view of revenue neutrality and prior Tribunal findings.Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed prior orders of the same appellant where identical issues were decided in favour of the appellant on the ground of revenue neutrality, and considered whether extended period of limitation, interest and penalty could be invoked when there was no mala fide intent and the receiving unit claimed CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found the cited precedents squarely applicable to the period in question and that there was no financial benefit to the appellant from the alleged undervaluation.Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalty is not sustainable; the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with consequential relief as per law.Final Conclusion: On the issues decided, the Tribunal concludes that scrap cleared to sister units cannot be valued using CAS-4 costing and that where CENVAT credit to the receiving unit neutralises revenue impact, demands including extended period, interest and penalty do not survive; accordingly, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is allowed.Ratio Decidendi: Where goods constitute incidental scrap/by-product and the receiving sister unit within the same corporate entity avails CENVAT credit resulting in revenue neutrality, detailed CAS-4 costing is not applicable and demands based on alleged undervaluation, including extended period, interest and penalty, are not sustainable.