The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹22,49,164 holding that the department failed to establish that the designs and drawings supplied free of cost by customers were includible in the assessable value of motor vehicle cabins.
The bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that adopting 0.98% of the value of cabins as the value of drawings, based on a suggestion made by one customer, was not a legally sustainable method of valuation. It observed that the percentage had no established connection with the actual value of the drawings and could not be uniformly applied to clearances made to all customers.
BUY NOW: 100+ Judgements On Customs Classification
The appellant/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle cabins and cabin parts. During a departmental audit, it was noticed that the company had received cabin designs and drawings, along with certain inputs, from its customers free of cost.
The assessee had included the value of the free-of-cost inputs in determining the transaction value. However, the Department took the view that the value of the cabin designs and drawings was also required to be amortised and included in the assessable value under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.
A Show Cause Notice dated October 26, 2015, was issued demanding ₹22,49,164 in excise duty for the period October 2010 to March 2015, along with interest. The Department also invoked the extended period of limitation and proposed an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and imposed an equivalent penalty through Order-in-Original No. 13/2017-CE dated March 10, 2017.
The Commissioner (Appeals), while finding fault with the methodology adopted for calculating the value of the drawings, nevertheless remanded the matter for determination of the appropriate amortised cost. This led the assessee to approach the CESTAT.
Dispute Over Valuation of Customer-Supplied Drawings
The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the drawings and designs supplied free of cost by customers constituted additional consideration that was required to be included in the assessable value of the cabins.
The assessee argued that Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act provided for transaction value where the buyer and seller were unrelated and the price was the sole consideration for the sale. According to the assessee, the company and its customers were not related and the cabins were sold at negotiated prices.
It was also submitted that, in the automobile industry, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) commonly provide specifications and drawings to component manufacturers so that the products conform to the OEM’s requirements. According to the assessee, the proprietary rights in those designs remained with the OEMs and the drawings were not sold or transferred to the manufacturer.
The assessee also distinguished between free-of-cost inputs and drawings. While the value of inputs supplied by customers was added to the transaction value because they were actually used in manufacturing, the drawings were supplied for reference and specification purposes.
Revenue’s Case
The Department maintained that the value of the free-of-cost designs and drawings was liable to be amortised and added to the assessable value under Explanation 1 to Rule 6.
The Revenue supported the remand ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that the appropriate amortised cost should be determined customer-wise.
CESTAT Frames Three Key Issues
The Tribunal identified three principal questions:
- Whether the notional value of the designs and drawings supplied free of cost by customers was includible in the assessable value under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 6.
- Whether determining the demand by applying a percentage suggested by one customer constituted a legally permissible determination of value.
- Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and whether penalty under Section 11AC was imposable.
Tribunal Examines Rule 6
The Tribunal noted that Rule 6, as applicable during the relevant period, contemplated inclusion of the money value of additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee.
Explanation 1 to the Rule dealt with goods and services supplied by the buyer free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with production and sale. Clause (ii) covered items such as tools, dies, moulds, drawings, blueprints, technical maps and charts used in production, while clause (iv) covered engineering, development, artwork, design work, plans and sketches undertaken outside the factory and necessary for production.
However, the Tribunal emphasised that the provision contained several factual conditions that had to be established by the Revenue.
According to the Bench, the Revenue had to establish that the material supplied by the buyer constituted consideration flowing to the assessee in relation to the sale, was supplied for use in connection with production and sale, was used in or necessary for production, and had a value that had not already been included in the price.
Mere Supply of Drawings Does Not Automatically Trigger Valuation Addition
A significant finding of the Tribunal was that the mere fact that drawings were supplied free of cost did not automatically mean that their value had to be added to the assessable value.
The Tribunal found that neither the Show Cause Notice nor the adjudication order examined the actual nature of the drawings. There was no finding as to whether the drawings were detailed manufacturing drawings from which the cabins could actually be manufactured or merely specifications setting out requirements relating to shape, dimensions, fitment and function.
The Bench observed that this distinction was crucial.
If the drawings merely communicated the buyer’s requirements to the manufacturer, they could not automatically be treated as engineering or production drawings supplied for use in manufacturing.
The Tribunal therefore rejected the approach of assuming that a free supply necessarily displaced the transaction value. It observed that the conditions contained in Explanation 1 to Rule 6 first had to be established.
Specification Drawings and Production Drawings Distinguished
The Tribunal relied upon earlier decisions including Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. and G.E. Plastics India Ltd., which distinguished between basic specifications and detailed engineering drawings.
It noted that a buyer merely informing a manufacturer about the desired shape, dimensions or specifications does not necessarily constitute assistance in the production process. Such information may simply communicate what the buyer wants to purchase.
The Tribunal also referred to decisions in Denso India Private Limited, Rane NSK Steering Systems Private Limited and Sintercom India Ltd. concerning the automobile-component sector.
In Denso, for example, specification drawings supplied at the request-for-quotation stage were found to provide the layout and dimensions of the required part, while the vendor subsequently prepared its own detailed drawings and remained responsible for design, manufacture, testing and supply. The Tribunal held that such specification drawings were neither used in production nor necessary for production.
Revenue Failed to Establish That Drawings Were Production Drawings
Applying these principles, the CESTAT found that the material before it showed that the appellant manufactured cabins for vehicle manufacturers and that the cabin design was proprietary to the vehicle manufacturer.
The drawings were supplied so that the cabin would meet the requirements of the vehicle for which it was intended.
However, the Revenue did not establish that the drawings were production drawings from which the cabins were actually manufactured or that they were necessary for production.
The Tribunal also considered it significant that the assessee had included the value of free-of-cost inputs in the transaction value while leaving out the drawings.
According to the Bench, this conduct was indicative of an interpretation of the valuation provisions rather than concealment, particularly since subsequent Tribunal decisions had adopted a similar distinction concerning specification drawings.
The Tribunal consequently answered the first issue against the Revenue and held that the notional value of the customer-supplied drawings was not includible in the assessable value on the material available in the case.
0.98% Valuation Method Held Unsustainable
The Tribunal then examined the manner in which the Department had quantified the demand.
During the investigation, the Department had approached the appellant’s customers. Mahindra & Mahindra stated that it was difficult to ascertain the value of cabin drawings or their amortisation cost. It also stated that the development cost of motor vehicle parts had not been identified.
However, Mahindra & Mahindra mentioned that the total development cost for tractors worked out to 0.98% and suggested that the percentage could be considered for calculating the value of cabin drawings.
The Department adopted that percentage and applied it to the value of cabins cleared to all customers.
The CESTAT found multiple problems with this approach.
First, the 0.98% figure was merely a suggestion made by a customer and was not evidence establishing the monetary value of the drawings.
Second, the figure related to tractor development costs, rather than the value of the cabin drawings.
Third, the percentage was derived from the response of only one customer but was applied to clearances made to every customer.
Fourth, the percentage was applied to the value of the cabins rather than to the value of the drawings themselves.
Tribunal: Valuation Cannot Be Based on an Arbitrary Percentage
The Bench held that the value of a drawing does not necessarily bear an arithmetical relationship to the selling price of the goods.
It therefore concluded that neither Rule 6 nor its Explanation authorised the Revenue to express the value of drawings as a percentage of the value of cabins merely because such a percentage had been suggested by a customer.
The Tribunal further noted that the Show Cause Notice did not identify the valuation rule under which the 0.98% figure had been adopted.
It observed that if the value could not be determined under Rule 6, the Revenue would have had to consider the residuary mechanism under Rule 11. Even under Rule 11, however, the valuation had to be based on reasonable means consistent with the statutory principles.
Section 14A Mechanism Could Have Been Used
The Tribunal also pointed to Section 14A of the Central Excise Act, which provided a mechanism for a special audit by a cost accountant in cases where the value declared by a manufacturer was considered incorrect and the matter involved complexity and revenue interest.
The Bench observed that the Department itself had recorded difficulty in ascertaining the value of the drawings. Despite this, instead of using the statutory special-audit mechanism, the Department adopted a percentage volunteered by one customer.
The CESTAT accordingly held that the addition of 0.98% of the value of cabins was not a determination of value under Section 4(1)(b) read with the applicable Valuation Rules.
Remand Also Set Aside
The Tribunal further disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to remand the matter for fresh determination of amortised cost.
According to the CESTAT, the quantification methodology was not merely a separable aspect of the demand; it constituted the basis of the demand itself.
Once the methodology was found unsustainable, the Revenue could not be permitted to reopen the matter in remand proceedings to gather evidence that had not formed part of the original Show Cause Notice.
The Tribunal stressed that a Show Cause Notice is the foundation of the Revenue’s case. A deficiency in the notice cannot be cured at the appellate or remand stage by allowing the Department to develop an entirely new evidentiary basis for the demand.
It held that remand could not be used to provide the Revenue with a fresh opportunity to gather evidence approximately ten years after the relevant period and construct a case that was not made in the original notice.
Extended Period of Limitation Not Available
The Tribunal separately considered the issue of limitation.
The demand covered October 2010 to March 2015 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on October 26, 2015. Although the notice was within the outer five-year period, the extended limitation could be invoked only if the statutory ingredients such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade duty were established.
The Bench noted that the appellant was a registered manufacturer, had filed periodic returns and had been subjected to periodic departmental audits.
Significantly, the Department’s own case was that the alleged omission came to light during an audit of the appellant’s records. The Tribunal found no allegation of a positive act of concealment, withholding of documents or misdeclaration.
Revenue Neutrality Also Considered
The Tribunal also considered the revenue-neutral nature of the dispute.
It noted that, if the duty had been paid, the vehicle manufacturers would have been entitled to credit. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Nirlon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, while clarifying that revenue neutrality was being considered only as one circumstance relevant to determining the absence of intent to evade, and not as a universal justification for non-payment of duty.
The Tribunal therefore concluded that the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period under Section 11A(1) had not been established.
It observed that, if the matter had been decided solely on limitation, the demand could have survived only for clearances falling within one year of October 26, 2015. However, because the demand failed on the merits and valuation methodology, the entire demand was liable to fail.
Since the Tribunal found that there was no wilful suppression or intent to evade payment of duty, it held that the requirements for imposing penalty under Section 11AC were also absent.
With the underlying duty demand itself being unsustainable, the associated interest and equivalent penalty could not survive.
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.
