TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that they are converting the scraps supplied by M/s.Greaves into ingots and the invoices clearly shows the manner in which they arrived at the assessable value for the purpose of Central Excise duty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints (1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has held that the valuation of goods produced on job work basis would be done on the basis of cost of material supplied and the processing charges. The invoices issued by the appellants are in consonance with the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, we find that there is no express or implies suppression/mis-declaration by the appellant. The argument of the learned AR that the appellants had purchased the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.Greaves Ltd. were sending bronze scraps to another party, namely, M/s.Transmissions, Bombay. M/s.Transmissions, Bombay was also converting the scraps received from M/s.Greaves Ltd. into ingots. M/s.Transmissions, Bombay was assessing the ingots at a value higher than that the value adopted by the appellant. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to enhance the value of the ingots by adoption of the comparative prices of M/s.Transmissions, Bombay by invoking Rule 6 (b) (i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The period of dispute was October 94 to September 1997 and a show-cause notice was issued on 27/01/2000 by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they had ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority on the basis of assertion of the appellant that they had purchased the scrap from M/s.Graves Ltd. under Rule 52A. He argued that under these circumstances, the appellant cannot claim that the ingots were manufactured by them on job work basis. He further argued that in the case of Tigrania Metal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (326) ELT 650 (Bom), the Hon ble High Court of Bombay had held that even if the assessee has been visited by the audit party extended could be invoked. 4. It was argued by the learned AR that the appellant were required to file a price declaration if they were manufacturing on job work basis and non fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es suppression/mis-declaration by the appellant. 6. The argument of the learned AR that the appellants had purchased the material from M/s.Greaves Ltd. also does not help the revenue. So long as it is not established that the appellants were aware of the supply of comparable goods by another supplier at a much higher price. In the instant case there is no evidence that the appellants have recovered any price higher than the declared in the invoice. In these circumstances even if the arguments of the revenue that the appellants had purchased the material from M/s.Greaves Ltd. there is no suppression or mis-declaration forthcoming. 7. In view of the above, the notice is barred by limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
