TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) will squarely apply i.e. to ascertain the assessable value on the cost of materials plus processing charges - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/52391/2015-EX(DB) - Final Order No.56474/2017 - Dated:- 8-9-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Shri H .Bajaj, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri SK Bansal, DR ORDER Per V.Padmanabhan. The appeal is against Order-in-Original No.17/14-15 dated 24.03.2015. Appellant engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Motor vehicle parts, i.e. Converter Assembly, Converter Comp (CC) etc. falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve background, we heard Sh Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri AK Bansal, DR for the Revenue. The ld Counsel for the appellant submitted, inter alia, that the provisions of Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules are not applicable in the instant case as the finished goods were neither sold by them in the market as directed by HSCIL, (Principal manufacture) nor cleared to any depot of HSCIL whereas the said goods cleared by the appellant was used for further processing by HSCIL. It was also submitted that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules were not applicable as the said goods were sold by the appellant and nothing was captively consumed for manufacture of any other final product, hence duty paid as per Section 4 of the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or manufacture of other articles. In this case, we find that the intermediate products are not consumed by 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 also 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 sides and perused the records. 6 . The undisputed fact in these cases is the appellant herein is a j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Valuation) Rules, 2000, which was introduced from 1-4-2007, is a self contained scheme for the goods manufactured by a 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 that 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee but are used for consumption or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, 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 im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstwhile Valuation Rules of 1975 read with Rule 6(b) read with the Apex Court decisions referred to 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 1-7-2000. In other words, after 1-7-2000, in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis, valuation would be governed by Rule 11 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
