CESTAT dismisses Appeal on Acceptance of Central Excise finalized Ad Valorem Value of Copper Anode [Read Order]

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), dismissed an appeal on acceptance of Central Excise finalized ad valorem value of copper anode.

M/s. Sesa Sterlite, the appellant manufactures copper anode in their smelter at Tuticorin and transfer the same to their own unit at Silvasa (Dadra & Nagar Haveli) and there is no sale of the product to any other independent buyer. Therefore, for the assessment for copper anode, the central excise ad-valorem value has to be arrived at under the provisions of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 and by following Cost Accounting Standards - 4 (CAS-4).

The goods are hence cleared provisionally and the value finalized at a later date. The Adjudicating Authority in the Order in Original has finalized the provisional assessment for the period from November 2002 to March 2003 by fixing the value of copper anode at Rs.94,594/- per MT.

The counsel for the appellant has stated that much water has flown since the issue of the impugned order and that they are now not disputing the value fixed and drew the attention to the Order in Original which showed the provisional values of copper anode declared by them under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.

The Counsel prayed for finalizing the pending assessments by setting off the excess payment for the earlier periods against any short-payment of duty and only the balance amount, if any, be demanded.

The Authorized Representative submitted that since the appellant has accepted the value as finalized in the impugned order, no issue survives to be decided by the Tribunal. A fresh prayer at this stage may not be maintainable.

A Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) and M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) observed that “Now the appellant’s counsel has orally accepted the value as determined in the impugned order and only requests for netting the excess payment against the amounts short-paid before the department raises a demand, if any. They have not given any written application amending their plea and making a fresh prayer, perhaps knowing that it is not maintainable.”

“By their acceptance of the impugned order the earlier dispute does not survive. We find that the issue now submitted by the appellant is what may arise post the finalization of the demand, if any, by the department, based on the impugned order and is currently not the subject matter before us” the Bench concluded.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates