Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 817 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - manufacture of end use car carrier - 25 car carriers for captive use for transportation of the cars - It has been contended by the Revenue that the cost of manufactured car carriers given by the Cost Accountant in their CAS 4 certificate is less than the value adopted by the Revenue for the previous period i.e. 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2004 - Applicability of notification 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 - Time Limitation. Whether the assessable value arrived by the appellant assessee for payment of Central Excise duty, on the car carrier body build by them, as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2000 read with section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct as per provisions of law? - whether the demand of duty is hit by bar of limitation? Held that:- It is seen that section 4(1)a of the Central Excise Act provides that assessable value of final products shall be the transaction value where the goods are sold by the assessee for delivery within time and place of removal and where the assessable value and price of goods is the sole consideration of sale - In the present case of the appellant, the condition of ‘sale of excisable goods’ is not being satisfied as manufactured goods are not being sold by the appellant assessee but used by them captively. The Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules specifically provides that where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be 110 % of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods - for determining the assessable value under the present situation under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is the closest and more appropriate because the basic requirement of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2008 that (a) that the goods are not sold and (b) the goods are used for consumption by appellant assessee, are satisfied - Since the goods are being used by the appellant assessee himself, it is not necessary that same need to be used only for the production and manufacture of other articles. The method adopted by the appellant assessee for determination of assessable value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, is legally correct and thus they have rightly discharged their Central Excise duty liability - there is no merit in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and same is set aside. Applicability of N/N. 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 - Held that:- Since same has not been subject matter either of the order in original or order of Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, there are no justification in commenting on the applicability of above notification in this case. Time limitation - Held that:- The present impugned show cause notice dated 26.04.2013 covers the period of financial year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 which is much beyond the normal period of demanding duty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Since the department has all along been aware about the practice followed by the appellant and they have also filed their return in time, there are no valid grounds for invoking extended time of limitation under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|