News Update

Govt orders mandatory declaration of stock position of wheatCPI gets Rs 11 Cr tax notice for using old PAN numberGST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCGovt issues advisory against calls impersonating DoTFATP hand-wrings over slow regulation of crypto by member-countriesGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCECI's C-Vigil app a big hit with votersGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Training Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
Valuation - Clearance to sister concerns at lower rates - Neither questions of facts nor any anticipated question of law would have any bearing on Revenue inasmuch as any outcome of this case will not detract from revenue neutral situation: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 12, 2010: A valuation dispute is involved in this appeal of the Revenue. During the period of dispute (from October 1994 to June 2000), the respondent had cleared wire rods to their sister units at Tarapur and Borivli at lower rates when compared to the price charged to independent buyers in respect of identical goods. The department, therefore, issued periodical show-cause notices, covering the above period, to the respondent seeking to recover differential duty of over Rs.25 crores.

In each of the show-cause notices, the maximum rate charged to independent buyers during the relevant period was adopted as basis for determination of the assessable value of the goods transferred to the sister units in the same period , an exercise done in terms of rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975.

The respondent contested the demand of duty on numerous grounds. They submitted that they had given various discounts to independent buyers, which required to be abated from the invoice value and the net value charged to independent buyer should have been taken as the basis for assessing the goods cleared to sister unit, under rule 6(b)(i).

After following the principles of natural justice, original authority confirmed demand of duty to the extent of Rs.16,69,98,005/- against the assessee by adopting the average of the rates charged to the independent buyers.

Against the order-in-original, both sides preferred appeals to the Commissioner(Appeals), the Revenue questioning the reduced demand of duty and the assessee challenging the entire demand. Disposing of both the appeals by a common order, Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the order-in-original and held the duty payments made by the assessee to be in order.

Hence the Revenue is before the CESTAT.

The Revenue representative placed reliance on the CESTAT decision in Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad, where the Bench approved the method of valuation done under Rule 6(b)(i) and also upheld the adoption of maximum price at which the goods were sold to independent buyers as basis for assessing the goods sold to the sister unit. It is also pointed out, that though the civil appeal 7853 of 2004 filed by Crompton Greaves Ltd. was admitted by the Supreme Court on 17.12.2004, no stay of operation of the Tribunal order was granted.

The respondent assessee suggested that the case could be disposed of on the sole ground of revenue neutrality. It was submitted that whatever differential amount of duty paid by respondent for the period of dispute would be available as CENVAT credit to their sister units and, therefore, a typical revenue neutral situation exists. In this connection, the following judgments were relied upon:

(a) CCE, Pune vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. [2007-TIOL-245-SC-CX]

(b) India Pistons Ltd. vs. CCE [2007-TIOL-2010-CESTAT-MAD]

It was also submitted that apart from the fact that the valuation dispute pertains to the period prior to 01.07.2000, the same is not of recurring nature and the issue is only of academic interest inasmuch as any amount of duty which may be paid by the assessee must be available as CENVAT credit to their sister unit without any abatement, thereby giving rise to a revenue neutral situation. It was also suggested that whatever questions of facts or law arising in this case could be left open.

However, the Revenue representative insisted for a decision on merits.

The Bench after going through the submissions observed –

“7. …, we are inclined to dispose of this case, for the ends of justice, by taking into account, the revenue neutral situation pointed out by the Counsel. The valuation dispute involved in this case is prima facie not relevant to the period from 01.07.2000. Nobody has claimed that a similar dispute between the assessee and Revenue for any other period prior to 01.07.2000 is up-coming. Apparently, the issue has no recurring effect and is only of academic interest. It is not in dispute that any amount of duty paid by the assessee will be available as CENVAT credit, without abatement, to their sister units, in which event a revenue neutral situation would emerge it. In the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar situation and disposed of the case, leaving a question of law open. In the case of India Pistons Ltd. (supra), similar course of action was taken by the Tribunal. In the instant case, questions of facts do arise and, of course, a question of law is also in sight. Neither the questions of facts nor any anticipated question of law would have any bearing on Revenue inasmuch as any outcome of this case will not detract from the revenue neutral situation . Whatever duty paid by the assessee must be available as CENVAT credit to their sister units. The appellant neither stands to gain nor stands to loose. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal without expressing any view on the questions of fact/law involved in this case.”

All great ideas are dangerous – Oscar Wilde, De Profundis

(See 2010-TIOL-1176-CESTAT-MUM in 'Excise')


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: valuation of goods cleared to sister concerns

Sir,
The view that any outcome of the case on valuation of goods cleared to sister units would be of revenue neutral is apparently due to the fact that any differential duty that legally accrues on valuation of goods cleared to sister concerns might be available as cenvat credit. If that is so, the same logic might apply even to the valuation of goods cleared to an unrelated buyer who avails cenvat credit as a manufacturer. Naturally, one may not approve of the undervaluation of the goods on the pretext of revenue neutrality,thanks to the legal provisions on valuation. Provisions on valuation of goods cleared to related units exist even after 1.7.2000 under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and adopting the principle of revenue neutrality might be detrimental to the valuation provisions in this regard and the Revenue alike.

Posted by rrkothapally rrkothapally
 

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023