9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Syed Tausif Ali, Representative for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - These appeals have been filed against the Orders-in-Appeal No. 110 & 111/2005 dated 29-4-2005, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-III), Hyderabad. 2. The appellants manufactured MS Pipes and supplied to Hyderabad Metro Water Supply Board. After removal from the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction value which is tender price in this case between supplier and buyer, needs to be taken into consideration as a whole. (ii) The case law and the Circular quoted by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be applied to the present case as assessee in the instant case knows the value receivable on account of the supply, well in advance and the duty payable also. When the value quoted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er unit which is undertaking the in-lining and out-coating work, is not paying any central excise duty or availing any Cenvat credit on the inputs. They are only collecting the job work charges. Further there is no sale involved between these companies. Out of many processes one process is being done at this unit, and will not fall under the situation mentioned in the case laws referred above by C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory of manufacturer, subsequent to clearance of pipes after payment of duty is not includible in the assessable value. Further the Tribunal's Mumbai Bench in the case of Welspun Gujarat State Rohran Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara-II [2006 (194) E.L.T. 340 (Tri. - Mumbai)] has held that coating of pipes done at premises of independent factory of job worker does not amount to manufacture and the value additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
