9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. and after texturising the same they were returning the said POY to M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. and they were given Rs.23/- per kg as charges for the job works carried out by them. Lower authorities on a visit to the respondent s factory came to a conclusion that the respondent had cleared the textured yarn after carrying out the job work on the basis that the price list received from M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. and they have not included the amount of job charges in the assessable value of textured yarn. After recording various statements, the respondent-assessee was issued with the show cause notice directing them to show cause as to why central excise duty be not demanded from them on the amount of job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l cost + job charges. It is the submission that merely because some price of textured yarn was informed by the principal manufacturer to the respondent-assessee, it ought not to be taken as the price of comparable goods and there is no comparable goods in this case. He prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the investigation in this case started with the common investigation against various other job workers of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. and in respect of other job workers, identical order has been passed by the first appellate authority and the said orders have not been challenged by the Revenue and only in this case Revenue has challenged the said order. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority in his order in original has categorically recorded that during the period, the prices shown in the price list of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. is less than the price shown by the respondent-assessee in the central excise invoices. This fact has not been controverted by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal. Be that at it may, we find that the first appellate authority was correct in recording the following findings: 6. I have considered the submissions made in the memorandum of appeals, which were reiterated at the time of personal hearing and have gone through the impugned OIO. The issue for determination before me in brief is when goods are manufactured on job work basis how the assessable value should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the raw material at the premises of the job worker (i.e. including the cost of the raw material, freight, insurance, interest charges etc. involved and the job charges (which include the profit margin) of the job worker. This clarification does not leave even an iota of doubt that in cases where value of comparable goods is known the same would have to be adopted for arriving at the assessable value under Sec.4 for goods manufactured by the job worker. Only in other cases i.e. the cases where such value is not available, the cost construction method is to be applied. In the instant case the goods were cleared on the price of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., so the price of comparable goods are known and when value of polyester textured yarn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority that the value considered by the respondent-assessee for discharge of duty liability is the value of the textured yarn cleared from his factory premises as a job worker and put into the market by M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. On the factual matrix, we find that the respondent-assessee has charged more than the amount which has been indicated by M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. of the retail sale price declared by them which are textured yarn manufactured as the job work of respondent-assessee.
9. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order of the first appellate authority is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.
10. The appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in the Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
