2025 (6) TMI 1804 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods manufactured by the appellant - determination of value in manner specified in Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 by adopting the value in terms of CAS-4 drawn - cost of natural rubber - suppression of fact or mis-declaration for evasion of duty - Extended period of limitation - Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that during the relevant period appellant was filing returns and also it was subjected to Audit from time to time. Further as per the statement produced by the Special Auditor it is stated that during the period from 01.09.2004 to 31.03.2005 actual duty payable was Rs. 1, 30, 16, 588/- and appellant had paid Rs. 1, 45, 73, 989/- and for the period from 01.04.2005 and 31.03.2006 duty payable was Rs. 2, 60, 24, 802/- and duty paid was Rs. 2, 90, 73, 878/- as per the calculation of Cost Accountant. Thus during the said period appellant had paid excess duty than what was payable by the appellant. Further as per the evidence on record appellant had adopted prices as per CAS-4 which was effective from 20.09.2004 for clearances made till 31.08.2006 and the next CAS-4 was drawn only with effect from 01.09.2006 as such it is alleged that significant increase in prices of raw material for the intervening period was not taken into account for clearances made. However Appellant draws our attention to the imported raw material used when cost of natural rubber has increased. As per the chart relied by Appellant they had increased the use of imported raw material up to 126%. Conclusion - Considering the revenue neutrality the unsustainable allegation of suppression of facts for invoking the extended period of limitation it is found that there is no merit in the case to reject the value as declared by the Appellant hence and impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the valuation of goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant, specifically compounded rubber, for the purpose of assessing Central Excise Duty. The principal issues include:

• Whether the assessable value of compounded rubber cleared to sister units and for captive consumption was correctly determined in accordance with the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, particularly Rule 8 and the application of Cost Accounting Standard 4 (CAS-4).
• Whether the appellant's use of alternative raw materials in lieu of natural rubber during the relevant period was properly accounted for in the valuation.
• The legitimacy of the demand for differential duty raised by the department, including the invocation of the extended period of limitation.
• Whether the alleged short levy resulted in any actual revenue loss to the government, considering the inter-unit transfers and availment of CENVAT credit by sister units.
• The applicability and effect of prior audit findings and cost worksheets prepared by the appellant's cost accountant on the determination of duty liability.

Issue 1: Correctness of Valuation of Compounded Rubber under Central Excise Valuation Rules and CAS-4

The valuation framework under the Central Excise Act and Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, mandates that assessable value should be determined following prescribed methods, including the transaction value and, where applicable, the cost-based valuation as per CAS-4 developed by the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. The department alleged that the appellant did not correctly factor in the increased cost of natural rubber in the valuation of compounded rubber cleared during April to August 2006, leading to short levy of duty.

The appellant contended that they consistently obtained CAS-4 certificates annually and adjusted prices of the final products accordingly, including two price increases during the relevant period. They also argued that the increased cost of natural rubber was neutralized by substituting imported Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR 1502), whose consumption increased by 124% during the period, as opposed to only marginal increases in natural rubber consumption. This substitution was supported by detailed raw material consumption data and cost worksheets prepared by their cost accountant.

The Tribunal examined the audit reports and cost calculations, noting that for the periods 01.09.2004 to 31.03.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006, the appellant had in fact paid duty in excess of the amount computed under CAS-4. The demand was limited to the period 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2006, where the department claimed a short levy of Rs. 52,68,159/- due to failure to incorporate the increase in natural rubber prices in the valuation.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had adopted the CAS-4 valuation effective from 20.09.2004 and the next CAS-4 certificate was only effective from 01.09.2006, leaving an intervening period where the cost increase was allegedly not reflected. However, the appellant's evidence of increased use of imported raw material during this period demonstrated an alternative cost structure mitigating the impact of natural rubber price rise.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's valuation was not incorrect as the cost increase was offset by substitution of raw materials, and the overall valuation methodology conformed to the legal framework.

Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation

The department invoked the extended period of limitation to raise the demand, implying a presumption of suppression or mis-declaration by the appellant. The appellant denied any suppression of facts or intention to evade duty and contended that the regular filing of returns and audits negated any such allegation.

The Tribunal noted the absence of any specific allegation or evidence of suppression or fraud. It held that invocation of the extended period was unjustified in the absence of such a finding. The appellant's conduct, including submission of CAS-4 certificates and audit compliance, supported the conclusion that the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

Issue 3: Revenue Neutrality and Inter-Unit Transfers

A significant aspect considered was that the compounded rubber was cleared to sister units and also captively consumed within the appellant's own factory for further manufacture of final products. The appellant argued that since the sister units availed CENVAT credit on the duty paid, any demand for differential duty would be revenue neutral for the government.

The Tribunal relied on precedents where it was held that when goods are transferred between sister units and the recipient units avail CENVAT credit, the government does not suffer any revenue loss, rendering the demand for additional duty untenable. The appellant also cited Supreme Court decisions affirming that in such revenue neutral situations, there is no intention to evade duty.

The department's representative did not dispute the availment of CENVAT credit by sister units but maintained the demand based on valuation principles. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the revenue neutrality principle is a crucial consideration and must be factored into the adjudication of duty demands in inter-unit transfer cases.

Issue 4: Application of Precedents and Legal Principles

The department relied on several decisions affirming the correctness of valuation under Rule 8 and CAS-4, including decisions from various benches and the Supreme Court. The appellant countered with decisions supporting revenue neutrality and the non-applicability of extended limitation periods absent suppression.

The Tribunal reconciled these precedents by distinguishing the facts of the present case, particularly the absence of suppression, the appellant's compliance with valuation procedures, and the revenue neutrality due to inter-unit CENVAT credit. It held that the principles laid down in the appellant's own prior case and the cited Supreme Court rulings were directly applicable and favored the appellant.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that:

• The appellant's valuation of compounded rubber was in accordance with the Central Excise Valuation Rules and CAS-4, duly accounting for raw material cost variations through substitution.
• The demand for differential duty for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2006 was not sustainable as the appellant had paid duty consistent with cost accounting standards and had no intention to evade duty.
• There was no suppression of facts or mis-declaration warranting invocation of the extended period of limitation.
• The inter-unit transfers and availment of CENVAT credit by sister units rendered the demand revenue neutral, negating any government revenue loss.
• The impugned order confirming the demand was therefore set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal articulated key principles, including the following verbatim extract from a prior decision relied upon:

"Before we part with the cases, we note that the duty paid on such processed yarn cleared by appellant is being taken as Cenvat credit, by their own sister concern. This fact is not disputed by the revenue. If that be so, then the question of revenue neutrality arises, as it is an admitted fact that the transaction is mostly between the sister units. If that be so, the demand of duty on the appellant would be of no consequence as it would be revenue neutral. We find that all the case laws cited by the learned counsel support this proposition."

This principle was pivotal in negating the demand despite the department's valuation concerns.

Further, the Tribunal underscored that the absence of suppression or fraud precluded the application of extended limitation, reinforcing the need for clear evidence before such invocation.

Finally, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the entire cost structure, including alternative raw materials, in valuation disputes, rather than relying solely on price increases of a single raw material.