Best Cast IT Limited Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
In Best Cast IT Limited Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT examined whether the amortised value of moulds and dies supplied by customers or retained by the manufacturer should be included in the assessable value of aluminium die-cast components, and whether extended limitation and penalty were justified. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aluminium die-cast automotive components, used moulds and dies either supplied free of cost by customers or manufactured as per their specifications and retained for production.
During audit, it was observed that the amortised cost of such moulds and dies was not included in the assessable value of castings. The department treated this as additional consideration flowing from the buyer under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and raised a demand of ₹4,17,684 along with interest and penalty invoking the extended period.
The appellant contended that duty had already been paid on moulds and dies when they were manufactured and invoiced, and that including their amortised value would amount to double taxation. It also argued that its methodology was known to the department through earlier audits and that extended limitation could not be invoked.
