Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 139 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - job-work - appellant submitted that Rule 10A(i) and (ii) are not applicable as the goods are not sold by the appellant but are used as packing materials by M/s. Marico Ltd. (principal) for packing of coconut oil - department was of the view that the price has to be determined upto 1.4.2007 applying Rule 8 and thereafter under Rule 10A(iii) r/w Rule 4 / Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - whether the appellants have correctly arrived at the assessable value of the job worked goods? - Held that: - The appellants have paid duty on the assessable valueworked out by taking into account the cost of materials plus conversion cost as laid down in the case of Ujagar Prints. The principal manufacturer (M/s.Marico) used the bottles in its factory for filling coconut oil - It needs to be mentioned that Rule 8 applies when goods are not sold. The goods (HDPE bottles) are sold by appellant to M/s. Marico. The appellant does not captively consume the goods nor does M/s.Marico consume it on behalf of appellant. Similar issue decided in the case of ADVANCE SURFACTANTS INDIA LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE [2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that provisions of Rule 10A can be brought into play only when there is a situation where excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a job worker on behalf of a person and cleared to the buyer of the principal and/or cleared to a depot or a consignment agent. The intention of the Legislature was to capture the tax on the goods, on the value of the said goods when cleared to the ultimate consumers. Appeal allowed.
|