Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 44 - CESTAT AHMEDABADValuation - Job Worker versus Related person - Manufacturing confectionary items on behalf of M/s. ITC Limited at their factory premises as a job worker. - whether valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellant for M/s ITC is required to be made under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with the provision of Sec. 4(3)(b)(iv) of the Central Excise Act 1944 by treating the appellant and M/s ITC as related persons. - Held that:- though mutuality of interest is not established but it has been correctly held by the adjudicating authority that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ujagar Prints (1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) cannot be made applicable to the present proceedings because the present case is clearly distinguishable from the facts and the principles laid down by Apex Court for valuation of the goods in case of manufacture of goods on job work basis. Appellant will be interested in getting work from M/s ITC as he is getting more financial gains from M/s ITC but it is not coming out anywhere in the case records as to have M/s ITC has financially gained from the appellant in the transactions. There is a clause in the agreement that M/s ITC at any time can get the work entrusted to the appellant, done from others. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 9 cannot be pressed into service in the present proceeding. The valuation of goods is required to be decided by the adjudication authority under the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000 applicable at the relevant time. - matter remanded back to decide accordingly.
|