9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1999-2000 to 2000-2001, they manufactured certain medicaments on job work basis for M/s. Systopic Laboratories Ltd. (SLL) who supplied the necessary raw materials. The job-worked medicaments were cleared to the said company on payment of duty based on Ujagar Prints formula i.e. the formula laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints vs. UOI [1988(38) ELT 535 (SC) and 1989(39) ELT 493(SC)]. The duty was paid on an assessable value comprising cost of raw materials and cost of conversion (job work charges) including profit in terms of the said formula. Later on, a scrutiny of their records for the aforesaid period by the Department showed that they had raised d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner(Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterated the grounds of the appeal. He submitted that the amounts collected by the respondent from their customer as product development charges and consultancy charges were for meeting indirect expenses connected with the conversion of raw materials into finished products and hence clearly identifiable as conversion charges which were liable to be included in the assessable value of the finished product. Per contra, the learned consultant for the respondent submitted that it was never the case of the Department that any of the ingredients essential for valuation of the job-worked goods had been left out by the assessee. He submitted that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that certain charges collected by the assessee for development of patterns of casting had to be amortized per unit of casting on its expected life. As regards product development charges, it was further submitted that service tax was being paid on these charges ever since they were brought within the net of service tax levy. On this ground also, the learned consultant contested the demand of duty on product development charges. Finally, the learned consultant pointed out that the lower appellate authority did not consider the plea of limitation. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The main issue raised before us is whether the product development charges and the consultancy charges collected by the respondent(j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould also be included in conversion charges so as to be part of the assessable value of the goods. The respondent is opposed to this view. The view taken by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) is that, as far as a job worker is concerned, any expense which is not attributable to the job work cannot be included in the cost of conversion and hence cannot be added to the assessable value. We are in full agreement with this view of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In the grounds of the present appeal, we have not found anything which warrants a different view. The appellant has not been able to substantiate their claim that the so-called product development charges and consultancy charges are to be treated as part of the cost of conversion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
