TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost of 1.1 MT of Sulphuric Acid required for manufacture of 1.45MT of Sulphonic Acid (by treating one MT of LAB) is ₹ 1980/- and in the process 0.8 MT spent acid is generated, which was sold by the assessee for ₹ 380/-. The assessee, therefore, have treated the cost of the Sulphonic Acid used as ₹ 1980 minus ₹ 380, that is, ₹ 1600/- and accordingly, after adding the conversion charges of ₹ 700/- per MT have taken the job charges as ₹ 2300 per MT and it is on the basis of these job charges that the assessable value has been determined after adding the cost of LAB. We find no mistake in the practice adopted by the appellant - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. E/2248 & 4609/2004 & E/571/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok into account only the net quantity of the Sulphuric Acid used in the job work and were charging an amount of ₹ 1600/- towards the cost of Sulphuric Acid. Since, their conversion charges were ₹ 700/-, the total job charges being charged by the Assessee from M/s HLL were ₹ 2300/- per MT. The assessee were accordingly, paying duty on the cost of the LAB received from M/s. HLL plus the total job charges of ₹ 2300/- per MT. The department was of the view that since in the annexure enclosed with the job work agreement, they have given the details of the calculations of the processing charges wherein they have shown ₹ 380/- per MT as the cost of spent Sulphuric Acid which was being sold by them and since, the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2006 and also the subsequent orders dated 04.08.2008 and 17.07.2008 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court disposed of these appeals by a common order dated 13.04.2012 by which the Apex Court remanded the matters to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on all the issues that had been raised before it, in accordance with the law. In this regard, para 7, 8 9 of the Apex Courts judgment are reproduced below: 7. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the entire matter. Regard being had to the grounds urged in these appeals, in particular, the question of invocation of extended period of limitation, we are convinced that in the interest of justice, it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to be granted adequate opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad of being return to the principal manufacturers, and that in view of this, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the confirmation of the duty demand against the assessee. He also pleaded that in the circumstances of the case, extended period under proviso to Section 11(A)(1) has been correctly invoked and penalty under section 11AC has been correctly imposed. 4. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that the assessee, while manufacturing Sulphonic Acid for M/s. HLL on job work basis, were receiving only the LAB free of charges from them and for processing of the LAB to make Sulphonic Acid, the Sulphuric Acid required for the purpose was their own, that as shown in the annexure III to the Job work agreement, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the subsequent order dated 14.11.2007 of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. 5. We have considered the submission from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the assessee during the period of dispute were manufacturing Sulphonic Acid for M/s HLL on job work basis out of the LAB received by them free of charges from M/s HLL. There is no dispute that for the purpose of manufacture of Sulphonic Acid, the Sulphuric Acid required, was being procured by the assessee on their own account. There is also no dispute about the fact that in respect of the Sulphonic Acid, manufactured by the assessee on job work basis for M/s. HLL, the duty liability was to be discharged in accordance with apex courts judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 3 of its judgment reported in 2006 (206) ELT 311 (Tri. Del) and also the plea of the Revenue would have been correct if, the assessee along with the LAB had also received Sulphuric Acid form HLL and only in that case, in the event of retention of the spent Sulphonic Acid and its sale by them, there would have been justification for adding the sale price of spent Sulphuric Acid in the job charges. But this is not the case here, as there is no dispute that the Sulphuric Acid used for the processing, belongs to the assessee and not to the principal manufacturer. In view of this, we hold that while there is no infirmity in the orders in appeal dated 21.01.2004 and 09.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such the Revenues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
