TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jivani, Chartered Accountant Shri Virat M Chavda, Advocate for Appellants Shri M P Damle, Assistant Commissioner (A R) for Respondent Per C J Mathew Appeals of M/s Tarapur Grease Industries Pvt Ltd against order-in-appeal no. BR/91 to 92/Th-II/2005 dated 20th April 2005 and BR/54/Th-II/2005 dated 13th May 2005 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV and of M/s Savita Chemicals Ltd against the first referred order are disposed off by this common order. 2. The dispute relates to alleged short-payment of duty by non-inclusion of the royalty expense in the assessable value computed by the job-worker, M/s Tarapur Grease Industries Pvt Ltd, for use of the brand Idemitsu under agreement between M/s Savita Chemicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above positon has also been clarified by the Board, by its circular dt. l9.10.2002 (supra). In the instant case, there is no dispute that appellant has followed the principles laid down by the apex court in arriving at the assessable value for payment of central excise duty. As already stated the royalty charges were paid by the principal manufacturers who are not the central excise assessees in the eyes of law. Therefore, whatever may be the transaction of the principal manufacturer has nothing to do with the value job worked goods. Further, to make the issue very clear it may be stated that if the appellant is a manufacturer of the subject goods with the brand name and is paying royalty charges, then definitely the charges has to be inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-worker. The original authority has observed that brand name had a value, which was equivalent to the royalty which other companies were paying to RAPL. It has held this value to be includible in the assessable value of the subject goods. But that authority appears to have overlooked the fact that any value of the brand-name was a value in the hands of the brand-name owner only and not in the hands of their job worker who did not pay anything of such value to the brand name owner. The view taken by the original authority has rightly been overruled in the impugned order by ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly, rejected. 4.2 From the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
