1990 (9) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation of excisable goods under Central Excise law based on the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970.

In this case, the appellants received aluminium ingots at a control price under the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970, for manufacturing aluminium rods for captive consumption and supply to other manufacturers. The dispute arose regarding the valuation of the aluminium rods manufactured for captive consumption. The Assistant Collector approved a price list submitted by the appellants, including conversion charges, resulting in an assessable value higher than the control price. The Appellate Collector held that the extra amount realized by the appellants over the control price should be included in the assessable value of the rods, leading to the current appeal.

The main argument presented by the appellants was that the aluminium wire rods manufactured for captive consumption were sold at a fixed price as per the notification under the Aluminium (Control) Order, and they could not sell the rods at a higher price. Therefore, they contended that the assessable value should be based on the fixed price of Rs. 9067/- per tonne as per the specification. The appellants also highlighted the exemption under Notification 187/78-C.E., which required the sale price to be in accordance with the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order. The appellants' representative argued that the extra amount realized was for job-work charges and not for the sale of rods.

Upon review, the Appellate Collector found that the appellants had indeed realized an extra amount of Rs. 805/- per M.T. as conversion charges over the control price. Citing Central Excise Valuation Rules and the Central Excises & Salt Act, the Appellate Collector concluded that since the appellants had realized this extra amount as part of the sale price of the rods, it should be included in the assessable value. The Collector emphasized that the appellants had violated the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order by realizing a price higher than specified. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the extra amount realized should be part of the assessable value, as it was included in the sale price of the rods.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the inclusion of the extra amount realized by the appellants in the assessable value of the aluminium rods manufactured for captive consumption, as per the provisions of the Central Excise law and the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970.