TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty - Held that: - appellant has sold the sprouts outside to the third party and retained the sale proceeds, then the value is required to be added to that of the goods, the malt supplied to the principal manufacturer and it attracts excise duty - decided against Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Ex. Appeal No. 52064 of 2015 & C.O. 51818 of 2015, Ex. Appeal No. 52190 of 2015 - A/57643–57644/2017 -EX[DB] - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Joy Kumar, Advocate for the assessee Sh. H. C. Saini, AR for the revenue ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeals are filed by the department as well as by the appellant-assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order dropped the demand for differential duty made in the show cause notice on the ground of valuation under Rule 10A. Against this aspect, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 4. With the above background, we heard Sh. Joy Kumar, ld. Advocate for the assessee and Sh H. C. Saini, ld. AR for the Revenue. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue justified the appeal against the impugned order on the basis of the CBEC Circular dated 31.03.2010. However, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that when the same CBEC Circular was examined by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Advance Surfactants India Limited Vs. CCE, Mangalore 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri. Bang.) the Tribunal has expressed the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 232 which was upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2010 (260) ELT A84 (SC) wherein it was held that the value of scrap retained by job worker and cleared on payment of duty is not includible in assessable value of bars cleared by job worker to principals since intermediate goods were not liable to duty. He further took support of the ratio laid down in Campco Chocolate Factory Vs. CCE, Mangalore - 2010 (258) ELT 273 (Tri. Bang) where it was mentioned that no question of adding the value of scrap to the value of the intermediate product cleared by job worker to principal manufacturer as per Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. On the other hand ld. AR for the Revenue distinguished both the case laws by mentioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
