Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of C.Ex. & Service Tax on 2 February, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.E/1033/2008-DB
[Arising out of OIA No.90/2008(Ahd-I)CE/ID/Commr(A), dt.29.05.2008, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad]
M/s Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax,
Ahmedabad-I Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, Chartered Accountant For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, A.R. For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 02.02.2016 Order No. A/10075 / 2016, dt.02.02.2016 Per: P.K. Das After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of SS/MS/CS Filter Press, Mixing Vessels and Spares thereof and Spares of SIP system etc., classifiable under Chapter 73 and 84 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of Audit, the Central Excise Officers noticed that the Appellant sold the goods to their Moraiya Unit and paid the duty on transaction value during the period November 2002 to October 2005. According to the Revenue, the Appellants would be liable to pay duty on 110% of the cost of production in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.
2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Assessee is that according to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, they have to pay duty on the cost of production + 10%. He submits that in the present case, the Adjudicating authority proceeded on 10% of the transaction value and not cost of production, for discharging Excise duty. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication order that they have submitted Chartered Accountant certificate in respect of the cost of production which was not considered.
3. We find that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 provides that whole or part of 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 or other articles, the value of such goods that are consumed shall be 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is not disputing the applicability of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. He is disputing the method of determination of 110% of the cost of production. We agree with the submission of the learned Counsel that the value of the goods shall be 110% of the cost of production and not the transaction value. We find that they have submitted CA certificate and no findings was given by the lower authorities. Hence, it is required to be examined by the Adjudicating authority to decide the case after considering the CA certificate to the extent of 110% of the cost of production for determination of the value.
5. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the CA certificate and other documents and to pass order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
??
??
??
??
3