2022 (3) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Job Work - applicability of valuation provisions contained in the newly inserted sub-clause (iii) of Rule 10A read with Rule 8 ibid - consequent upon insertion of Rule 10A in the Central Excise Valuation Rules,2000 (w.e.f. 01.04.2007) - liability to pay Central Excise Duty on 110% of the cost of production of the Laminations - HELD THAT - It is not the case of Revenue that the Laminations manufactured by the appellants were sold by the principal manufacturer in as it is condition to the buyers. Since the said goods were used by another job worker and such job-worked goods were further used by the principal manufacturer for ultimate manufacture of the final product by themselves, which were subsequently sold in the open market, the valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellants cannot be done as per the provisions of Rule 10A(iii) ibid read with Rule 8 ibid. Rather, in our considered opinion, the valuation in the circumstances of the present case should appropriately be done as per the formula laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT . - This view of the Bench is in consonance with the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . In the case in hand, inasmuch as the job-worked goods were sent by the appellants to another job worker for further manufacture and such manufactured goods thereafter were used by the principal-manufacturer for manufacture of a entirely different excisable product. In other words, the Lamination manufactured by the appellants were not used by the principal-manufacturer for manufacture of Compressors . There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellant - the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
2. Determination of assessable value for job-worked goods.
3. Validity of the method of valuation adopted by the appellant.
4. Consideration of previous judicial decisions and their binding nature.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000:
The core issue was whether Rule 10A, inserted in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, applied to the valuation of job-worked goods manufactured by the appellants. The department argued that Rule 10A read with Rule 8 mandated the appellants to pay Central Excise Duty on 110% of the cost of production. However, the Tribunal found that Rule 10A was not applicable since the job-worked goods were not sold as-is but were further processed by another job worker before being used by the principal manufacturer in the final product.

2. Determination of assessable value for job-worked goods:
The Tribunal examined whether the method of valuation adopted by the appellants, based on the Supreme Court's formula in Ujagar Prints Ltd. vs. Union of India, was correct. The Tribunal concluded that the valuation should be done as per the Ujagar Prints formula, which includes the cost of raw materials plus job charges and profit. This method was deemed appropriate since the job-worked goods were not sold directly but were used in further manufacturing processes.

3. Validity of the method of valuation adopted by the appellant:
The Tribunal noted that the department had accepted the appellants' valuation method until March 2007. The change in the department's stance post the inclusion of Rule 10A was not justified. The Tribunal held that the appellants correctly valued their products by considering the aggregate cost of raw materials, job charges, and job-work profit, in line with the Ujagar Prints case.

4. Consideration of previous judicial decisions and their binding nature:
The Tribunal emphasized that previous decisions, such as those in Advance Surfactants India Ltd. and Rolastar Pvt. Ltd., supported the appellants' method of valuation. The Tribunal criticized the lower appellate authority for not considering these decisions, noting that mere filing of an appeal does not negate the effectiveness of a Tribunal's order unless stayed or overruled by a higher court. The Tribunal also distinguished the facts of the present case from the Eicher Motors Ltd. case, which was relied upon by the department.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and set it aside. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, confirming that the valuation method based on the Ujagar Prints formula was appropriate and that Rule 10A did not apply in this context.

Order Pronounced:
(Order pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2022)

← Previous Next →