2015 (7) TMI 1444 - AT - Central Excise

Method of valuation - determination of assessable value of bulk chocolates manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Nestle and M/s. Cadbury - applicability of Provisions of Rule 10A(iii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 or Rule 8? - HELD THAT - Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT BANGALORE has considered an identical position and has held that in the case of 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. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE THANE-II 2014 (5) TMI 1243 - CESTAT MUMBAI . Tribunals decisions in the case of Indian Extrusions vs. CCE Mumbai 2012 (5) TMI 271 - CESTAT MUMBAI can also be referred to. The said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Pvt. Ltd. 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. Conclusion - The appellant was not required to adopt Rule 8 for assessing the value of bulk chocolates manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Nestle Rule 10A shall apply. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the appellant should adopt the assessable value in accordance with Rule 10A(iii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, or continue using the Ujagar Prints formula for determining the assessable value of bulk chocolates manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Nestle and M/s. Cadbury.The detailed analysis of the issues is as follows:The Court considered the appellant's engagement in the manufacture of bulk chocolates and chocolate materials on a job work basis for M/s. Nestle and M/s. Cadbury. The appellant had been clearing the bulk chocolates by adopting the assessable value based on the Ujagar Prints formula, which included the cost of raw materials, manufacturing cost, and a margin of profit.The Revenue contended that the appellant should have applied Rule 10A(iii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, introduced in the Budget of 2007. The original adjudicating authority upheld the Revenue's position, relying on Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, which allows the adoption of assessable value based on 110% of the cost of the product.On appeal, the Commissioner (A) upheld the applicability of Rule 8 but remanded the matter for re-adjudication based on the CAS 4 principle, leading to the present appeal.The appellant argued that Rule 8 was not applicable to their case as they were not selling the final product nor using it in their factory or on their behalf, citing Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court precedents.The Revenue argued that the appellant should adopt the same price for clearance to M/s. Nestle as adopted for M/s. Cadbury under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.The Court considered the appellant's submission that they adopted Rule 8 for M/s. Cadbury based on agreement, while disputing the applicability for M/s. Nestle, emphasizing the legal issue at hand.The Court referenced previous Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court confirmation that in cases of manufacturing on job work basis, neither Rule 10A(iii) nor Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules would apply, and goods should be assessed to duty using the Ujagar Prints formula.The Court concluded that the Revenue's stand of adopting Rule 8 was not favored, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief specifically related to job work for M/s. Nestle. The correctness of the value adopted in terms of the Ujagar Prints formula was left for future verification by the Revenue.In summary, the Court held that the appellant was not required to adopt Rule 8 for assessing the value of bulk chocolates manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Nestle, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.The significant holdings include the Court's rejection of the Revenue's application of Rule 8 and confirmation that the Ujagar Prints formula should be used for assessing the value of goods manufactured on job work basis. The final determination was to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with relief specific to the job work for M/s. Nestle.