The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service charges collected for modification of moulds used in manufacturing automobile bumpers cannot be treated as additional consideration for the finished goods where the charges relate to a distinct service and no nexus with the transaction value of the goods is established. The Tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable in the absence of wilful suppression or intent to evade duty. 

The bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao, (Technical Member) has observed that Rule 6 and Explanation 1 did not expressly address service charges for modification of moulds whose original cost had already been amortised. Therefore, the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions and their interaction with the service tax already discharged. 

Buy Now: 50+ Judgements on Customs Valuation

The appellant manufactured bumpers for Ford India using iron moulds through the injection moulding process. The moulds were procured from third-party manufacturers, and Cenvat credit was availed on them. The moulds were subsequently sold to Ford on payment of VAT but continued to remain in the appellant’s factory for use in manufacturing bumpers.

The appellant amortised the cost of the moulds and included the amortised value in the sale price of the bumpers supplied to Ford. Central Excise duty was discharged on this value, and this practice was not disputed by the department. 

The dispute arose separately in relation to modifications carried out to the moulds at Ford’s instructions. The appellant collected service charges for carrying out such modifications and discharged service tax on those charges.

During a departmental audit in 2014, the Revenue took the view that the mould modification charges should also form part of the amortised cost of the moulds and consequently be included in the assessable value of the bumpers. A show cause notice was therefore issued proposing recovery of Central Excise duty for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15, along with interest and penalty. The extended period under the Central Excise Act was also invoked. 

The adjudicating authority, in its Order-in-Original dated January 31, 2017, accepted on merits that the mould modification charges were required to be included in the amortised cost of the moulds.

However, it found that the entire demand was beyond the normal period of limitation and that the Revenue had failed to establish circumstances justifying invocation of the extended period. Consequently, the entire demand was dropped. 

The Revenue challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellate authority reversed the adjudicating authority’s decision, holding that the extended period was invocable because the appellant had allegedly suppressed crucial information and wilfully misdeclared the transaction value of the bumpers. It also held that penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was imposable. 

The appellant thereafter approached the CESTAT.

The appellant clarified that there was no dispute regarding amortisation of the original cost of the moulds. That cost had already been included in the price of the bumpers and Central Excise duty had been paid accordingly.

The dispute was confined to whether charges collected separately for modifying existing moulds could also be amortised and included in the assessable value of the bumpers. 

The appellant argued that the modification charges were consideration for a separate service and could not be treated as additional consideration towards the manufacture or sale of bumpers.

Reliance was placed on Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. According to the appellant, additional consideration could be included only where the required connection with the transaction value of the goods was established.

The appellant also pointed out that the moulds had already been purchased and their amortised cost was included in the value of the bumpers. Ford had not supplied the moulds to the manufacturer free of cost or at a reduced cost. The modification charges, according to the appellant, represented a separate service on which service tax had already been discharged. 

The appellant further distinguished the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in ISMT Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, arguing that the case involved product development costs having a direct nexus with newly developed goods, whereas the present dispute concerned modifications and repairs to existing moulds. 

The department supported the appellate authority’s findings and contended that the charges incurred towards modification of moulds were required to be included in the assessable value.

The Revenue relied upon Circular No. 170/4/96-CX dated January 23, 1996, and argued that payment of service tax on the modification charges did not prevent the same amounts from being considered for Central Excise valuation.

It was also contended that the appellant had suppressed material information by failing to include the modification charges in the assessable value and, therefore, the extended limitation period was correctly invoked. 

The Tribunal identified three principal questions for determination:

1. Whether the mould modification service charges were required to be included in the amortised cost of the moulds for determining the assessable value of the bumpers under Rule 6 of the CEVR, 2000;
2. Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A was correctly invoked; and
3. Whether penalty under Section 11AC was imposable. 

The Tribunal held that the modification charges could not be treated as additional consideration for the sale of bumpers.

The CESTAT noted that Rule 6 applies where the price is not the sole consideration for sale and requires inclusion of the money value of additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee.

However, in the present case, the modification charges were consideration for a distinct and independent service provided by the appellant to Ford. The appellant had openly disclosed the activity and had discharged service tax on the charges. 

The Tribunal emphasised that there must be a nexus between the alleged additional consideration and the transaction value of the goods before such amount can be loaded onto the assessable value.

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the department had failed to establish any such nexus between the mould modification charges and the price of the bumpers.

The charges were received as consideration for the modification service and were not a component of the price at which the bumpers were sold to Ford. 

The Tribunal also examined Explanation 1 to Rule 6, which deals with the value of tools, dies, moulds, drawings, blueprints and similar items supplied by a buyer free of cost or at a reduced cost to the manufacturer.

The CESTAT found that the provision did not apply to the facts of the case.

The moulds had been purchased by the appellant from third-party manufacturers. Their cost had already been amortised and included in the price of the bumpers. Further, Ford had purchased the moulds from the appellant on payment of VAT rather than supplying them free of cost.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that modification of the moulds constituted a separate activity and that Explanation 1 could not be extended to service charges for modification or repair work carried out on moulds whose cost had already been amortised. 

The CESTAT rejected the Revenue’s reliance on Circular No. 170/4/96-CX.

According to the Tribunal, the circular dealt with amortisation of the cost of patterns in the assessable value of castings and did not address whether service charges for modification or repair of moulds, on which service tax had already been paid, should also be included in amortised cost.

The Tribunal held that the circular could not be extended to cover a situation that it was not intended to address. 

The Tribunal also found the reliance on ISMT Ltd. v. CCE, Pune misplaced, noting that the factual circumstances in that case were materially different and involved product development costs having a direct nexus with the goods being manufactured. 

The Tribunal also considered the appellant’s reliance on Accounting Standard 10.

It noted that AS 10 contemplates capitalisation where expenditure increases the future benefits from an existing asset beyond its previously assessed standard of performance.

In the present case, there was no material showing that the modifications increased the life span of the moulds or the number of bumpers that could be produced using them. The appellant’s contention that the modifications merely resulted in changes to dimensions, weight or design of the bumpers remained uncontroverted.

The Tribunal clarified that accounting standards do not override statutory valuation provisions but observed that they could assist in understanding the nature and character of the expenditure. 

Consequently, the CESTAT held that the service charges collected for mould modifications were not includible in the assessable value of the bumpers under Rule 6 of the CEVR, 2000. 

The Tribunal separately examined the limitation issue despite having already found the demand unsustainable on merits.

It noted that the extended period of five years under the relevant proviso to Section 11A could be invoked only where non-payment or short payment resulted from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of statutory provisions with intent to evade duty.

The burden of establishing the necessary ingredients for invoking the extended period rested on the Revenue. 

Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal reiterated that mere non-payment of duty does not by itself constitute suppression. Suppression or misstatement must be wilful and connected with an intention to evade duty. 

The Tribunal found the invocation of the extended period unsustainable.

A significant factor was that the department had itself conducted an audit of the appellant’s records in 2014, and the show cause notice arose from the findings of that audit.

The appellant had also been regularly filing excise and service tax returns and had openly discharged service tax on the mould modification charges. The amortisation of the mould cost and its inclusion in the price of bumpers were also reflected in invoices issued to Ford. 

The Tribunal therefore held that the material facts which the Revenue alleged had been suppressed were either already within departmental knowledge or were readily ascertainable from the records and returns filed by the appellant.

The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents holding that where the department has conducted an audit and is aware of the assessee’s activities, the extended period cannot ordinarily be invoked in the absence of deliberate suppression or fraud. 

The CESTAT further observed that the dispute involved a genuine question of interpretation concerning the treatment of mould modification charges for Central Excise valuation.

The Tribunal rejected the reasoning that the assessee should have sought clarification from the department whenever it had a doubt about the manner of computation of assessable value.

It held that an assessee is not under an obligation to seek clarification from the department on every question of law. The obligation is to disclose facts honestly, which the appellant had done. 

Since the entire demand fell beyond the normal one-year period and the extended period was not available, the entire demand was liable to fall. 

On the question of penalty, the Tribunal observed that the ingredients required for invoking Section 11AC were substantially the same as those required for invoking the extended limitation period.

Having concluded that there was no evidence of suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty, the Tribunal held that penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained.

The appellate authority’s finding imposing penalty was therefore held unsustainable. 

The Chennai CESTAT ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated March 28, 2018.

The Tribunal held that the mould modification service charges were not includible in the assessable value of the bumpers and that the extended period of limitation had been wrongly invoked. The penalty under Section 11AC was also held to be unsustainable.

The appellant was held entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law. The order was pronounced in open court on September 22, 2026.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Silver Electrical Contacts Classifiable Under CTH 8538: CESTAT