2015 (12) TMI 231 - SCH - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - inclusion of actual fabrication cost by the processor or only the fabrication charges received on the material supplied - Captive consumption - Held that - CESTAT has held that Rule 6(b) (i) of the Valuation Rules is not applicable when the goods are produced on job work basis and returned to the raw material supplier. In coming to this conclusion, the CESTAT has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Collector v. Kandivali Metal Works 1997 (12) TMI 641 - SUPREME COURT . We may note that this legal position has been reiterated by this very Bench in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT . - No merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis. The Court held that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules does not apply when goods are produced on job work basis and returned to the raw material supplier. This decision was based on previous judgments, including 'Collector v. Kandivali Metal Works' and 'Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.'