2015 (11) TMI 42 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Inflation in value of export goods - Levy of excess credit - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) in her order has observed that in case of Ujagar Prints, the processed goods were returned to the suppliers of the raw materials. In those cases the buyers had not done any processes in job workers premises. In this case the goods were directly cleared from the job workers premises for export and no processes were done by exporters in job-workers premises. It was therefore, necessary to clear the goods at export price which the processors has done. On this ground, she has differentiated the facts from those of Ujagar Prints.- there is no merits in the appeals filed by the Revenue - Decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raipur 2005 (3) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation principles under Ujagar Prints judgment not followed by processors and exporters in fabric processing and export; Allegation of inflating value for excess credit; Costs included in assessable value disputed; Differentiation from Ujagar Prints case; Inclusion of processing costs within premises in export value challenged; Precedents cited for inclusion of all costs in assessable value; Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) decision; Cross objections by exporters.

Analysis:

1. Valuation Principles under Ujagar Prints Judgment:
The judgment revolves around the valuation principles set in the Ujagar Prints case. The Revenue alleged that processors and exporters did not adhere to these principles, inflating the value for levying excess credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated the case from Ujagar Prints, noting the direct clearance of goods for export from job workers' premises without further processing by exporters, justifying the valuation method adopted by processors.

2. Inclusion of Processing Costs in Assessable Value:
The core argument focused on whether the value of processing done by exporters within processors' premises should be part of the export product's value. The Tribunal cited precedents like Steel Authority of India Ltd. case and Jubilee Fabrics Ltd. case to support the inclusion of all costs incurred within the factory for assessment purposes, even if borne by the buyer. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that all processes undertaken in the factory, regardless of the party incurring the cost, contribute to the assessable value.

3. Appeal and Disposal:
The Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments, affirming the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The cross objections filed by exporters were also disposed of in line with the main decision. The Tribunal concluded that the deemed credit facility availed by the appellants was justified based on the accepted assessable value, as per the activities done by exporters within the factory premises of the processors.

In summary, the judgment delves into the application of valuation principles, the inclusion of processing costs in the assessable value, and the differentiation from precedents like Ujagar Prints. The Tribunal's decision upholds the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling, emphasizing the importance of considering all costs incurred within the factory premises for determining the assessable value of goods.