TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise authorities and the assessment was also final. However, the impugned order has not recorded any findings with regard to such submission of the appellant. With regard to consideration of assessable value for payment of central excise duty, the independent job worker is required to include the price at which the job worked goods would leave its premises along with the profit margin. Post manufacturing profit in the hands of main manufacturer should not be considered as the element of assessable value for determination of the duty liability - Thus, as an independent manufacturer, the assessable value is determinable under Section 4(i)(a) of the Act and there was no necessity of going into the Valuation Rules for such determination. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant was engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, falling under Chapter 51, 55, 62 and 63 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed price declarations in the proper format in respect of the goods, i.e., wool tops and polywool yarn manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. While scrutinizing the records of the appellant, the department contended that M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., while arriving at the assessable value of yarn/wool produced by them, had not taken into account the indirect cost incurred by them such as cost of finance, depreciation, wear and tear of machinery, administrative expenses and the profit margin earned in the previous ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Ujagar Prints vs. UOI, reported in 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC). The appellant also submitted that Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 is applicable only to captive consumption and not to the job worker. In this context, the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of J. Ice Cream (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2000 (121) ELT 89 (Tribunal). 5. On the other hand, learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 6. The adjudged demands were confirmed on the appellant on the ground that it had not followed the proper procedure in construing the sale value inasmuch as the raw material received from the supplier M/s. Raymond Woo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation Rules for such determination. Further, Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules is only applicable to the case of captive consumption and not to the goods manufactured on job work basis. Hence, such rule cannot be applicable in the present case, as held by the Tribunal in the case of J. Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is also not the case of Revenue that the appellant is related to the supplier of goods M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. In our considered view, the appellant had appropriately discharged the central excise duty liability on the goods manufactured on job work basis and supplied to the supplier M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. as the goods had been subject to valuation as required in Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 before arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
