TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trate is cleared to sister unit situated at Visakhapatnam on payment of Central Excise duty. The Visakhapatnam unit uses the said concentrate for further manufacture of excisable goods. As such the excise duty on the Iron Ore Concentrate is discharged in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, considering the use for captive consumption. These are admitted facts and are not in dispute. The dispute is only with reference to periodicity of costing to be followed while arriving at value in term of Rule 8 as above. In other words, whether the CAS 4 based costing of Iron Ore Concentrate is to be done on an annual basis or for a lesser durations of 2/4/5 months, as and when the raw mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I reported in 2015 (323) E.L.T. 227 (S.C.) held that the assessable value of manufactured goods are to determined at the time of removal. Further events or factors that are unknown to an assessee at the time of removal of goods are irrelevant for determination assessable value. (c) the reliance placed on Board s Circular dated 30/10/1996 is not at all relevant. The said circular dealt with addition of previous year s profit margin to arrive at valuation in terms of erstwhile Valuation Rules. The said circular does not prescribe adoption of current year s profit margin for valuation which is in line with Hon'ble Supreme Court s decision in Purolator case (supra). (d) cost of production of goods can be determined at any give....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for further use is subjected to excise duty and valuation for such duty has to be worked out in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The central point of dispute is the frequency or periodicity of costing in terms of CAS-4. The appellants followed different value during the same financial year based on revision of costing within the year more than once. The Revenue contended that the costing should be annual basis and, hence, during whichever month the value happens to be less than the average annual cost, duty was confirmed. 6. First, we consider the appellant s plea regarding the transaction value arrived at based on costing should be at the time of removal. It was submitted that the scheme of things for excise duty purposes in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid on a provisional basis and upon arriving at the costing applying CAS-4 and the assessable value in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules final determination of duty liability has to be made. In the present case, admittedly no provisional assessment was resorted to by the appellant. Hence, the determination of actual cost much later on the clearance resulted in certain adjustments and payments by the appellant. 8. The appellants referred to guidelines issued by the Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India on CAS-4. We have perused the same. Para 8 deals with periodicity of CAS-4 Certificates. The guidelines states that the frequency of revising the certificate of cost of production will depend upon the significance in the changes i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment arrived at cost on annual average basis the duty liability, excess or shortage has also to be determined on such basis. It is not tenable while for arriving at per unit duty liability the whole year data is considered for costing, for total duty liability only months when short payment was noticed were considered. In other words when CAS-4 based annual costing formed basis for arriving transaction value, the overall duty liability/short payment should be arrived at after considering duty already paid during that year on such goods. We find the reasoning given by the Original Authority against adjustment of already paid duty as untenable. Section 11B has no application in such situation, when the appellants duty liability is determin....