TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The respondents herein are engaged in job work for conversion of raw material i.e. semi-finished goods of iron and steel products supplied by Steel Authority of India Limited into finished goods, which are sold on behalf of the SAIL. Declarations were filed by them in Annexure-II Proforma as required under the proviso to Rule 173C(1) of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). On this basis 15 show cause notices involving central excise duty Rs. 35,91,315/- were issued which were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who, after allowing deduction of element of Modvat involved on the inputs used in the final products, confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,48,026/- and also impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fits of job worker. It is not to include the profit of the merchant who finally sells the processed goods. In the present case, the goods were sold on behalf of SAIL and the appellants paid duty at the time of removal of goods on the sale price of SAIL. Thus, it is case where the assessable value included all the cost and profit up to the sale of the goods i.e. the profit of the merchant (SAIL) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication before the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Tribunal s order. Since the issue involved admittedly stands covered by the earlier decision in the case of M/s. Surindra Steel Rolling Mills (supra) which has not been shown to have been either stayed or overruled, we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
