Back
Eveready Industries: Sale Price Below Manufacturing Cost Cannot Be Used For Excise Valuation, Says CESTAT
The Allahabad bench of the has delivered a significant ruling on excise valuation, holding that a manufacturer cannot rely on a declared sale price for duty assessment merely because the buyer is an independent party, if the price is substantially and continuously below the cost of manufacture.
The bench, comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava, was hearing appeals filed by M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd. against demands raised by the .
Case Background: Batteries Sold Below Cost Under
Eveready manufactures primary cells and batteries. The dispute concerned batteries coded AAMJ 1015 supplied to two torch manufacturers — PMS Flashmatics Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar, and Elin Electronics Ltd., Solan (Himachal Pradesh). Under a , these manufacturers produced torches as per Eveready’s specifications, co-packed them with the supplied batteries, and sold the finished product back to Eveready.
The department found that Eveready cleared identical batteries to these two units at ₹2.13 and ₹2.20 per piece, while transferring similar goods to its own Lucknow unit at ₹2.90 and ₹2.81 per piece, determined under . The revenue argued that this pricing pattern indicated a , making the buyers “ ” under . It therefore rejected the contractual price and demanded duty based on cost of manufacture.
Arguments: No Relationship, Transaction at Arm’s Length
Eveready contended that there was no direct or indirect mutuality of interest with the two torch manufacturers. The transactions were on a , and the prices were comparable to those charged to other independent buyers. The company argued that the department’s invocation of the was invalid because all relevant facts were disclosed in its returns and agreements were on record.
The revenue, however, maintained that the unique — where the torch manufacturers could sell the co-packed product only to Eveready — established a relationship that vitiated the arm’s length nature of the transaction.
Legal Analysis: No Need to Decide ‘Related Person’ Issue
The tribunal found it unnecessary to conclusively determine whether the buyers were “ .” Relying on the ’s landmark decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. (2012), the bench observed that even a price charged to an independent buyer could be rejected if it was much below the cost of manufacture in .
“We do not find it necessary to determine with regards to existence of relationship between the Appellant and the buyers of the goods. Even if we hold that there was no relationship than also the value could not have been much less than the cost of manufacture in ,” the tribunal stated.
The court noted that Eveready itself cleared identical batteries to its own unit at a higher price based on , confirming that the sale price to the external manufacturers was not the sole consideration for the sale. Following Fiat India , the tribunal held that when depress the price, the cannot be accepted under .
Limitation and Penalty: Partial Relief for Eveready
On the limitation issue, the tribunal sided with Eveready. It noted that the company was registered with the department, filed all required returns, and the agreements with the torch manufacturers were already on record. Therefore, the revenue could not invoke the extended period under for the demand covering , which was set aside as time-barred.
However, the demands for subsequent periods — raised through a show cause notice dated and a statement of demand dated — were within the and were upheld along with interest.
The tribunal also set aside the penalties imposed under . It observed that the adjudicating authority had erroneously invoked , which deals with wrongful availing or utilization of credit, whereas the case concerned of goods. “This penalty needs to be set aside for this reason itself,” the bench remarked.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “Even if we hold that there was no relationship than also the value could not have been much less than the cost of manufacture in .”
- “If the price is not the sole consideration for the sale, then the shall not be the .”
- “The appellant was duly registered with the Department filing all the returns… hence invocation of would not be proper.”
- “Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules… is applicable only in the case where CENVAT Credit has been wrongly taken or utilized. The Adjudicating Authority… have failed to take note of the fact that neither this Rule was invoked in the Show Cause Notice nor is applicable in case of .”
Court’s Decision
The CESTAT partly allowed both appeals. It set aside the demand raised by invoking the and the penalties imposed, while upholding the demands raised within the along with interest. The ruling reaffirms the principle that the price for excise valuation must reflect the true commercial value of goods, and that persistent below-cost pricing — even to independent buyers — cannot escape scrutiny under the
