TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l rates; they duly revised applications as per the queries raised and clarifications sought by the authorities. Learned Commissioner passed the impugned order holding, inter alia, that * value addition figures/claims, submitted vide letter dated 17. 11. 2023 by Modern Papers are liable for rejection as not supported by value addition certificates containing reliable data. * the eligibility condition of actual value addition being at least 115% of 34% was satisfied only in respect of four products, namely, Buprofezin 25% SC, Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG, Sulosulfuron 75% WDG, and Chloropyriphos 50%+Cypermethrin 5% EC * no special rate can be given in respect of some items where nil or negative sales value is indicated; * the value of the finished products should be based on actual sale price and not on the MRP and as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. * discounts given need to be deducted while arriving at the net sales value; when product-wise details of rebate/discount/cash discount are not available, discounts are to be proportionately taken across all products. * certificates given by the statutory auditor should be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate calculations of four eligible products on any other consideration. 5. Learned Counsel submits that the Order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the applications is neither proper nor legal in view of the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s Kokuyo Camlin Limited 2023 (6) TMI 300-CESTAT Chandigarh. He also relies on the E-Mail dated 22-04-2024 sent by Revenue. He further submits that it is well settled law that in the normal course the authorities are bound to accept the Chartered Accountant's Certificate as held in M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited 2023 (10) TMI 991-Cestat Kol. 6. Shri S.K. Meena, learned Authorised Representative, reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the appellants challenge to the Notification No. 19/2008-CE and 34/2008-CE, vide which benefit, as was given under the original Notification No. 56/2002-CE was restricted to value addition, has been since decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VVF 2020 (372) ELT 495 (SC). 7. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the appellant mainly contesting the calculation method as adopted by the adjudicating authority for value addition on two grounds namely, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that all the pending applications shall be decided accordingly; * However, the appellants filed a Write Petition No.1844/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir vide Order dated 09.09.2021 (amended vide Order dated 06.10.2021) directed the department to consider the applications filed on 09.07.2020 for fixation of Special Rate without insisting on time limit; an appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to be dismissed; * The appellants did not provide certificates containing actual sale value for the year 2010-11 and therefore, he was not considering the fixation of Special Rates for the years 201011 and however was proceeded to fix rates for the subsequent years; * Corresponding figures in the balance sheets/ profit and loss accounts of respective previous years tally with the figures given in Value Addition Certificates issued by the auditors of the appellants; * MRP cannot be considered as a sale value; sale value is the actual sale price on which goods have been actually sold to the buyers and the value incorporated in the books of accounts; * Value Addition Certificates in respect of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2004; (iv) Plus: Value of said goods available as inventory in the unit but not cleared, at the end of the financial year; (v) Less: Value of said goods available as inventory in the unit but not cleared, at the end of the financial year preceding that under consideration. Special rate would be the ratio of actual value addition in the production or manufacture of the said goods to the sale value of the said goods excluding excise duty, Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, if any, paid on the goods. 12. We find that the explanation is clear as far as the value is concerned. The explanation makes it clear that sale value of the said goods, excluding excise duty, Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, if any, paid on the goods, is to be considered. This Bench has gone in to this issue in the case of M/s Medley Pharmaceuticals Lt, vide final order No. 60576-60577/2025 dated 27-5-2025 and held that : 12. Coming to the first question as to whether the value shown in financial records or the value under Section 4A less abatement be taken for arriving at the value of sales, we find that the as per the explanation below para 4 of the notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustan Unilever Limited 2023 (10) TMI 991-Cestat Kol. We find that the submissions made by the appellants have legal force. We find however, that both the issues have not caused any great material effect on the calculations arrived at by the commissioner after giving a couple of opportunities to the appellants to file the revised claims. We find that whatever deficiencies needed correction, as perceived by the Commissioner, have already been corrected by him. 15. We find that having discussed each of the items required in the calculation of the Special Rate for the respective years, having concluded that the Special rate claimed by the appellants is correct for some items in some years, surprisingly, commissioner finds that there are variations in cost and sale figures over the years. The doubt was not necessary and a query sent to appellants, vide email dated 22.02.2024, to furnish the reasons (product-wise) attributable to these variations, was unwarranted. We find that in reply, the appellants, vide letter dated 27.02.2024, submitted as follows. .........the variation in Cost and Sale prices can be attributed to several factors- 1. Seasonal Nature and Weather....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17 are liable for rejection on addition ground that none of the goods qualify for special rate certification as the value addition is less than 39.10% i.e. 115% of the 34% rate prescribed in notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, as amended. 17. We find that having observed as above, the commissioner proceeds to reject all the applications filed by the appellants. We find that Learned Commissioner ignores his own finding that the appellants are eligible for value addition in respect of some items. Interestingly, we find that the value addition decided by the commissioner (AA) does not vary much from the value addition claimed by the appellants, in respect of the said items in the said years. Interestingly, Commissioner does not even bother to sanction the Special Rate in respect of items for which he himself held that the value addition was more than 115% of 34% and he doesn't even discuss the admissibility to additional refund in such cases. He pauses just before the conclusion and makes a U-turn and holds that the special rates cannot be sanctioned for extraneous reasons, which were effectively countered by the appellants as discussed above. Such an order cannot be sust....