9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates and chocolate materials, on job work basis for M/s. Nestle as also for M/s. Cadbury. The raw material is being supplied by the principal manufacture and after the receipt of the bulk chocolate the same is consumed by the principal in the manufacture of the final product i.e., chocolates. The appellant was clearing the said bulk chocolates on payment of duty of excise by adopting the assessable value in accordance with the Ujagar Prints formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, the assessable value was being arrived at on the basis of the cost of raw materials plus the manufacturing cost as also by adding the margin of profit. 2. Revenue entertained a view that appellant should have adopted the assessable valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice the fact that the appellant has not contested the price adopted on the basis of 110% of the manufacturing cost in case where the bulk chocolates is being cleared by them to M/s. Cadbury. As such, they should adopt the same price for clearance of the same product to M/s. Nestle, in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. 5. In her rejoinder, learned advocate submits that they were doing the job work for M/s. Nestle as also for M/s. Cadbury. At the time of dispute raised by the Revenue M/s. Cadbury agreed to adopt the assessable value in terms of Rule 8 and agreed to pay the Central Excise duty accordingly. It is in these circumstances, the appellant adopted the assessable value in terms of Rule 8, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of goods on job work basis neither Rule 10A(iii) nor Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 would have any applicability and the goods have to be assessed to duty in terms of Ujagar Prints formula. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Glamour Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane: 2014-TIOL-1612-CESTAT-MUM. Tribunals decisions in the case of Indian Extrusions vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2012 (283) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.-Mum.) can also be referred to. The said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX. 7.1 Inasmuch as the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
