Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1033 - CESTAT HYDERABADValuation - Job work - repacking of Cement into retail packs of different sizes - sale of goods on behalf of principal - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules - inclusion of profit margin of 15% in assessable value - time limitation - Held that:- RBIL is discharging the duty liability on such bulk Ultramarine Robin Blue by considering the cost of production and 15% mark up as provided under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules. It is not in dispute that RBIL is correctly discharging the duty liability as the bulk Ultramarine Robin Blue cleared is repacked and resold as Ultramarine Blue on behalf of RBIL. Provisions of Rule 8 would apply to RBIL and they accordingly discharged the duty liability. The formula which is sought to be applied for discharge of duty liability by the appellant is cost of raw material plus Job worker’s charges and on this amount, the Central Excise Duty needs to be discharged. In the case in hand, appellant undisputedly is a job worker and includes the cost of job charges but while arriving at the raw material cost has considered only cost of production shown by RBIL in their invoice when they cleared the Ultramarine Robin Blue in bulk - In the case in hand, there being no dispute as to the fact that appellant is job worker of RBIL, has to consider the cost/ value of the raw materials. In the case in hand, raw material for the appellant is Ultramarine Robin Blue in bulk pack on which the duty liability is discharged by taking value of the cost of production plus 15% mark up. Appellant should have considered the value of bulk Ultramarine Robin Blue on which the principal has discharged the duty liability. Time Limitation - Held that:- Appellant had not brought this aspect of the valuation to the notice of the department and did not file any price declarations as was required during the relevant period. The first price declaration which was filed by him was in 2001 - appellant has no made out any case in his favour on the question of limitation also. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|