1995 (11) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 17-4-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.
2. Inclusion of profit of 5% in the declared cost of raw material supplied by the customer.
3. Determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 when raw material is supplied by the customer to the manufacturer.

Detailed Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi pertained to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay's order dated 17-4-1984. The respondent, M/s. Testles Ltd., requested an adjournment citing closed offices and unavailability of appeal-related papers. However, the Tribunal rejected the adjournment request and proceeded with the hearing on 30-11-1995. The matter under consideration dated back to 1981.

The core issue revolved around the inclusion of a 5% profit margin in the declared cost of raw materials supplied by M/s. Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) to the respondent, who manufactured transmission line towers on behalf of GEB. The Revenue contended that the profit margin should be added to the declared value of raw materials to determine the correct assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions to decide on this matter.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal focused on whether the 5% profit margin should be added to the declared cost of raw materials when the customer supplies the raw material to the manufacturer. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Ujagar Prints, emphasizing that when raw material is supplied by the customer, the assessable value should include the cost of raw material, job charges, and the manufacturer's profit margin. Notably, in such cases, where the raw material is provided by the customer, it is not considered a sale, and the manufacturer's conversion charges are presumed to cover their profit margin.

Ultimately, after evaluating all relevant aspects, the Tribunal concurred with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay's decision that the demand for a 5% notional profit was unsustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and confirming the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

This judgment clarifies the approach to determining the assessable value when raw materials are supplied by the customer to the manufacturer and highlights the significance of considering all relevant factors, including legal precedents, in excise duty matters.