2017 (10) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - job-work - case of the department is that valuation in hand of the appellant should be equal to the landed cost of the raw material plus job work charges as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Ujagar Print 1988 (11) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Held that - The valuation method as mentioned will be applicable only in case where the sale price of the goods is not available - In the present case there is no dispute that goods manufactured by the appellant in the capacity of the job worker for their principle M/s. TISCO, the same is sold by the M/s. TISCO to the independent customers. The said sale price has been adopted for discharging the excise duty by the appellant. Since in the present case sale price of the very same goods is available and same has been accepted by appellant for discharging excise duty there is no need to resort to valuation rules under Section 4(1)(b). Appellant have correctly applied the value on the basis of sale price at which principle had sold the goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of job work goods based on sale price vs. landed cost plus job charges

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the valuation of job work goods by an appellant engaged in manufacturing E.R.W. Tubes on behalf of a principal company. The appellant had been clearing the job work goods on payment of duty by adopting the sale value at which the principal company sold the goods. However, the department contended that the valuation should be as per the landed cost of raw material plus job charges, based on a principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a previous case. The department issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the differences in valuation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, leading the appellant to appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals).

The appellant argued that they correctly discharged the duty liability by adopting the actual sale price of the goods sold by the principal company to independent customers. The appellant relied on specific judgments to support their contention. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Addl. Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the impugned order and emphasized the valuation principle based on the landed cost of raw material plus job charges, as per previous court decisions. The Revenue also cited relevant judgments to strengthen their argument.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions for the valuation of excisable goods. The Tribunal noted that when the sale price of the goods is available, the valuation should be based on Section 4(1)(b) and the relevant valuation rules. In this case, the goods manufactured by the appellant for the principal company were sold by the principal to independent customers at a specific sale price, which the appellant used to discharge excise duty. The Tribunal referred to previous court decisions, including a case involving Ispat Industries Ltd., to emphasize that when the sale price of similar goods is available, the valuation should be based on the sale price instead of resorting to valuation rules. The Tribunal also cited the Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd case, where it was held that when the sale price of the goods is adopted for excise duty payment, no different price can be applied.

Based on the discussion and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly applied the value based on the sale price set by the principal company. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the conflict between valuing job work goods based on the sale price adopted by the appellant versus the valuation principle of landed cost plus job charges advocated by the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision clarified that when the sale price of goods is available and used for excise duty payment, there is no need to resort to alternative valuation methods, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant.