9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pen market as well as on account of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. on job-work basis, out of raw material supplied by M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. The issue for determination in the said case is as to what should be the value of the CPC manufactured by the appellants on job-work basis out of the raw material supplied by M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2. The appellants filed price-lists in Part-VII in respect of the goods manufactured on job-work basis with effect from 24-9-1993. While claiming the assessable value of CPC, the appellants sought the same on the basis of the cost of raw material i.e. the RPC, plus the conversion charges. While including the cost of raw material, they sought deduction of the excise duty already paid on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise (Appeals), Calcutta observed that as the appellants were also manufacturing CPC on their own behalf and were selling the same in the open market, the determination of the assessable value of the CPC manufactured on job-work basis, should have been in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 and not in terms of the provisions of Rule 7 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. The appellate authority further observed that as there was no difference between the CPC manufactured by the appellants out of the raw materials purchased by them from the open market and the CPC manufactured by the appellants on job-work basis, out of the raw material supplied by M/s. Hindalco, both types ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed of, is to be included while arriving at the cost of the final product, is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 and it has been held that the duty paid on the inputs with regard to which the Proforma Credit has been availed of, is not includible in the assessable value of the final product under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. 5. Learned Counsel read paras 10 to 12 of the said Judgment to impress upon that the facts of the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. are similar to the facts of the instant case. He further referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame should be rejected. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 8. As regards the appellants' submission that since the Assistant Commissioner has determined the value under the provisions of Rule 7 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) and has made the cost as the basis for arriving at the assessable value, it was not open to the first appellate authority to apply the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i), we do not agree with the said contention. The issue involved before the adjudicating authority was to determine the assessable value of the C.P.C. manufactured by the appellants on job-work basis out of the raw materials supplied by M/s. Hindalco. If the Assistant Commissioner has applied the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii) fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee : Provided that in determining the value under this sub-clause, the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and, in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods; (ii) if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods;" 9. From a reading of the said Rule, it is obvious, that the same has to be applied after ousting the Rule 6(b)(i). Now, Rule 6(b)(i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the final product, becomes futile. While going through the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., we find that in para 10 it has been observed as follows : "......According to 6(b)(i) the assessable value is based on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee. Both sides accept that this provision is inapplicable to this case......" In view of the above observation, it is clear that the Larger Bench was not dealing with the applicability or non-applicability of Rule 6(b)(i) as neither side had disputed this point. On the contrary, both sides in that case accept that this provision was not applicable. As such, the Larger Bench decided the question in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
