2003 (12) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of duty demand and imposition of personal penalty for undervaluation of assessable value of Steel Ingots.
- Interpretation of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules regarding the assessable value of goods manufactured on job-work basis.
- Applicability of Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii) in determining assessable value.
- Comparison of goods manufactured by the appellant on their own and on job work basis.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of a personal penalty on the appellant for undervaluing the assessable value of 'Steel Ingots' manufactured on a job-work basis. The Revenue argued that the intrinsic cost of raw materials should be considered, while the appellant contended that the value of comparable goods should be adopted under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The authorities below rejected the appellant's contention, stating that they opted to pay duty based on the costing structure.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that there is no option between Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. Rule 6(b)(ii) can only be applied if Rule 6(b)(i) is not applicable. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the need to adopt the value of comparable goods for assessing the value of goods manufactured on a job-work basis.

Since the authorities did not accept the appellant's contention that the goods manufactured by them were identical and comparable, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the appellant's contention and make a finding based on the Tribunal's observations. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and a stay petition was also disposed of in the process.