1999 (9) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeals on merits and limitation, overturns Commissioner's order on excise duty valuation.

UNITED PESTICHEM & NONIONICS P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VII

The Tribunal allowed all three appeals on merit, with one appeal succeeding on the ground of limitation as well. The Commissioner's order was found ... Valuation - Demand - Limitation Issues:1. Valuation of goods for excise duty purposes.2. Inclusion of Modvat credit in the assessable value.3. Imposition of penalty and recovery of duty.4. Applicability of legal precedents on excise duty valuation.5. Limitation period for recovery of duty.Valuation of goods for excise duty purposes:The appellants manufactured goods on a job work basis for a principal manufacturer and filed price lists for these goods, claiming that the goods were not sold but used for job work. The valuation was based on the cost of raw materials and processing. The issue arose when a show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of duty and imposition of penalty, alleging that the principal manufacturer earned profit through Modvat credit reimbursement, which should be included in the assessable value of the goods. The Commissioner upheld the charges, citing Supreme Court judgments and disregarding Tribunal precedents.Inclusion of Modvat credit in the assessable value:The Commissioner relied on Supreme Court judgments to include Modvat credit in the assessable value of goods, contrary to Tribunal decisions that held otherwise. The Tribunal, in a separate case, distinguished the Supreme Court judgments and held that duty paid on inputs availed as Modvat credit should not be included in the assessable value. Following this reasoning, the Commissioner's order was found to be unsustainable on merits.Imposition of penalty and recovery of duty:The Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalties on the appellants based on the alleged evasion of duty through erroneous data supplied by a Chartered Accountant. The Commissioner also directed proceedings against the principal manufacturer. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants' actions did not amount to suppression, and the ignorance of certain details did not constitute a basis for penalty imposition. Consequently, the appeals succeeded on merit, and the penalties were not justified.Applicability of legal precedents on excise duty valuation:The Tribunal analyzed various legal precedents, including Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments, to determine the correct approach to excise duty valuation. While the Commissioner relied on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found that Tribunal precedents were more applicable in the present case. By following the Tribunal's interpretation of the law, the appeals succeeded on the grounds of excise duty valuation.Limitation period for recovery of duty:The appellants argued that the demand for duty was hit by limitation as the pricing details, including the exclusion of CVD in the price lists, were known to the Department since 1987. The Tribunal agreed that the Department was aware of the relevant details, and the ignorance of certain aspects by the Department did not constitute suppression by the appellants. Therefore, the plea on limitation was upheld, and the appeals succeeded on this ground as well.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals on merit, with one appeal succeeding on the ground of limitation as well. The Commissioner's order was found unsustainable on merits, particularly regarding the inclusion of Modvat credit in the assessable value and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following Tribunal precedents in excise duty valuation matters and upheld the appellants' arguments on various legal issues involved in the case.