TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the 'assessee') are engaged in the manufacture of Steel pipes which were cleared to M/s. BWSSB, Bangalore. The allegation is that they were undervaluing their goods inasmuch as they were not including the cost of guniting charges, transportation charges, handling charges incurred by them in the assessable value declared by them to the Department for clearance of their products to M/s. BWSSB for laying of pipes for the period from 1-4-2000 to 28-2-2001; from 1-3-2001 to 31-1-2002 and also for the period from 1-2-2002 to 6-1-2003. Hence show cause notices dated 2-5-2001, 23-4-2001, 28-3-2002, 26-3-2002, 3-1-2003 and 3-2-2003 were issued. After due adjudication, the demands were confirmed besides imposing penalty by Orders-in-Original No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. As the said clarification is in a situation where the duty paid goods are cleared to the other unit for carrying out further process not amounting to manufacture and the other unit belongs to the same group or is that of the job workers who merely processes the goods without owning them and collects job charges and return or clears the goods on behalf of the supplier of the goods. 3.The learned Sr. Counsel reiterated his argument as advanced at the time of hearing of the stay petition and contended that the process was carried out by the appellants in different premises and the same does not amount to manufacture. Hence the value has not been added in terms of the Board Circular No. 139/08/2000-CX-4 dated 3-1-2001. He relied on the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble as in both the cases, the Apex Court held that in case of the wrong Circular has been issued, the same is binding on Revenue even if placing different interpretation then the ruling of the Supreme Court. She submitted that in the present case, the Board Circular No. 139/08/2000-CX. 4 dated 3-1-2001 is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the above cited Apex Court citations are not applicable. She relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd v. Collector of C. Excise [2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)] wherein it has been held that even though a process does not amount to a process of manufacture, even in such circumstances, the value of such process is to be added while arriving at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case where the process does not amount to manufacture. On a close reading of the Board Circular dated 3-1-2001, we notice that the Board has clarified only with regard to a situation where there is the clearance of pipes on payment of duty to the other premises for carrying out further process of guniting which does not amount to manufacture. The learned JCDR has rightly distinguished the Board Circular and contended that in the present case, the appellants had not cleared duty paid pipes to their own unit for carrying out the process of guniting. Therefore the question of applying the Board Circular in the light of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Maruti Foam (P) Ltd. (supra) does not arise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
