2016 (12) TMI 1456 - AT - Central Excise

Misdeclaration of value - Interest - Penalty - Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules 2000 - Held that - it is an admitted case of revenue that the appellant have not brought the bought out items in their factory of manufacture and it is further admitted fact that the control panels are not cleared along with bought out items from the factory of manufacture - Under the facts and circumstances that the appellant have placed the orders on third-party vendors for supply of the bought out items directed to their customers and have paid the applicable sales tax/VAT the same does not attract levy of excise duty - It is an admitted fact that the bought out items have never entered the factory premises of the appellant so as to become part of the manufactured control panel nor the same have been cleared along with the control panels - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of Excise duty on bought out items supplied directly to customers
- Application of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000
- Allegations of suppression of facts and extended period of demand
- Separate accounts for manufacturing unit and trading unit
- Misapplication of Rule 6 of Valuation Rules
- Clearance of bought out items from the factory
- Control panels' dependency on bought out items

Analysis:
1. Demand of Excise Duty on Bought Out Items:
The appeal was against an Order-in-Original raising a demand of Excise duty on bought out items supplied directly to customers. The Revenue argued that control panels supplied by the appellant could not function without the bought out items, specifically drives. However, it was established that the bought out items never entered the factory premises of the appellant to become part of the control panels. The Tribunal held that since the bought out items were not cleared along with the control panels, Rule 6 of Valuation Rules did not apply. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits.

2. Application of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000:
The Tribunal found that Rule 6 of Valuation Rules did not apply in this case as the bought out items were not brought into the factory premises for manufacturing control panels. The control panels were not cleared along with the bought out items, leading to the conclusion that there was no mis-declaration of transaction value by the appellant. Therefore, the levy of excise duty on bought out items was deemed inappropriate.

3. Allegations of Suppression of Facts and Extended Period of Demand:
The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts or contumacious conduct justifying the invocation of the extended period for demand. The Tribunal agreed and held that the extended period was wrongly invoked. The demand for the extended period was set aside, considering the absence of any suppression of facts.

4. Separate Accounts for Manufacturing Unit and Trading Unit:
The appellant maintained separate accounts for their manufacturing unit and trading unit. This fact was crucial in determining the applicability of excise duty on traded goods. The Tribunal found that since the bought out items were not part of the manufacturing process and were directly supplied to customers, the levy of excise duty on traded goods was not tenable.

5. Misapplication of Rule 6 of Valuation Rules:
The Tribunal concluded that Rule 6 of Valuation Rules was misapplied in this case. The rule is applicable when price is not the sole consideration for the sale of manufactured goods. Since there was no such finding in the appellant's case, the application of Rule 6 was deemed misconceived.

6. Clearance of Bought Out Items from the Factory:
It was established that the bought out items never entered the factory premises of the appellant, and they were not cleared along with the control panels. This fact was crucial in determining the liability for excise duty on traded goods. Since the bought out items were not part of the manufacturing process, no excise duty was leviable on them.

7. Control Panels' Dependency on Bought Out Items:
The Revenue argued that the control panels supplied by the appellant were incomplete without the bought out items, specifically drives. However, the Tribunal found that the bought out items were not essential parts of the control panels as they were not part of the manufacturing process. The control panels were standalone products, and the bought out items were optional traded items supplied based on customer requests.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and granted the appellant consequential benefits, including the refund of the amount deposited during the investigation. The personal penalty on the Directors was also deleted.