9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, the decorated glass and glassware were sold in the market. The process of decoration of glass and glassware did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise law as was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). By the Finance (2) Act, 1988 Chapter note 6 was inserted in Chapter 70 which made decoration of glassware, a process of manufacture under excise law. The said Chapter note was enacted w.e.f. 19-7-1988. 3. By a Notification, decorated glassware in respect of which input duty credit has not been taken was exempted from excise duty in excess of 8% of the value and the said notification provided that the value for the purpose of this exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also states that the respondents are clearly eligible to the exemption as also valuation on the basis of cost plus profit in terms of the exemption notifications as they have not taken any input duty credit in respect of the plain glassware and have therefore fulfilled the conditions of the exemption. 7. After taking into account the arguments from both sides and cited case laws and records of the case, we find that as regards the first issue is concerned, introduction of the Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 70 had the effect of imposing the new levy on decorated glassware which was outside the ambit of excise levy before enactment of Finance (2) Act, 1988 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (cited supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for determining origin of a product. Unfortunately, the expression used in Notification No. 5/98 is not 'value added' but 'value charged'. This has given a lee-way to the respondents to pay duty on a lesser value as the expression 'value charged' is usually not found either in origin determination rules or in taxing statutes. We find that the Lower Appellate Authority has directed determination of the value charged applying Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. 9. The ld. Counsel for the appellants states that the direction of the Lower Appellate Authority amounts to determining the value on the basis of cost of decoration plus notional profit and he states that against such determination, the respondents have not filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
