2003 (8) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment of goods manufactured on job work basis when similar goods were also manufactured by the assessee on his own account.

Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of goods manufactured on job work basis when similar goods were also produced and cleared by the assessee on his account. The appeal was remanded back to the adjudicating authority as the Modvat credit had not been excluded in determining the assessable value of the goods due to the absence of a correct certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant. Both sides agreed to remand the matter for a fresh examination considering the correct certificate. The Commissioner's order was challenged as it strayed from the valuation principles established by the Supreme Court in the Ujagar Prints case and subsequent tribunal decisions. The Commissioner's attempt to deviate from the law laid down in Ujagar Prints and other relevant cases was deemed unsustainable, especially when the costing certificates were not found invalid. The Commissioner's order was set aside as it did not adhere to the valuation formula mandated by the Apex Court.

The consideration of the sale price of scrap generated during the manufacturing process of job work cylinders was disputed. The value of raw material leading to the alleged scrap had already been factored into the costing of the cylinders, as per the Ujagar Prints decision. The sale value of the scrap should not have been included again. The Commissioner failed to consider the costing data and the Apex Court decision while determining duty short paid. The order was criticized for proposing to value the goods based on a different parameter, contrary to established legal principles. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a re-determination of duties and penalties, if any, after considering the costing data and applying the Ujagar Prints formula along with the Supreme Court decision in the Dai Ichi Karkaria case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal for remand to re-determine the duties, fines, and penalties based on the correct application of valuation principles and relevant legal precedents.