TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessable value on the cost of materials plus processing charges. In our view, the appellants have been correctly valuating their products by adopting this method. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No.2051/2010-EX(DB) - Final Order No.54617/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ITOS Agglomerate , an intermediate product, used in the manufacture of Detergent Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant neither are they used on their behalf in the production of other articles. In fact, they are job workers of intermediate goods and the final product is manufactured by M/s.Procter Gamble. We find in such situation Rule 8 cannot be made applicable. 4. We note that the identical issue has been settled by the Tribunal in Advance Surfactants India Ltd. - 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tribunal-Bang.), wherein in paras 5 to 9 is held as under:- 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both I sides and perused the records. 6. The undisputed fact in these cases is the appellant herein is a job worker manufacturing LABSA for Ms. HUL. It is also undisputed that HUL gives LAB and the appellant uses other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job worker. The general principle which has been followed for determining the value in such cases is that the value, at which the principal manufacturer sells the goods, after it is received from the job worker, is considered as the assessable value. Following the said general principle, it is felt the where the goods manufactured by a job worker are used for captive consumption by the principal manufacturer, in such cases their value would be determined in terms of clause, (iii) of Rule 10A read mutatis mutandis with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules which provides for taking of 110% of the cost of production of the goods. Yours faithfully, (Madan Mohan) Under Secretary (CX.1) Copy to :-AII Chief Commissioners o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value shall be one hundred and fifteen per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods . A perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that it relates to valuation of excisable goods not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles . This is clearly not the case here. The goods are not being captively consumed by the assessee himself or on his behalf by somebody else. There could be no argument that this rule has any relevane to the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the valuation carried out under the impugned orders is contrary to the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above. 3. Under the new valuation provisions, introduced with effect from 1-7-2000, there is no departure from the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above two decisions, in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis. In other words goods manufactured on job work basis after 1-7-2000 will continue to be valued in the same manner as they were being valued before I-72000. In other words, after 1-7-2000, in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis, valuation would be governed by Rule Il of the new Valuation Rules of 2000 read with Rule 6 read with the above two decisions of the Apex Court. 3. It is clear from the above two paras of the Circular that goods produced on job work basis are required to be valued ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
