9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000. After receipt of the said ultramarine blue in bulk form, respondent repacked the same into retail pack and was discharging duty on clearance of such retail packs by arriving at the value by the formula as is settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints i.e. considering the cost of production in the hand of main raw material supplier i.e. M/s. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. and not adding the 15% margin to the said cost of production. Show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty on this 15% margin. Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions made before dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. Held that- the impugned order is set aside and Revenue’s appeal is allowed by way of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iser India Ltd. and not adding the 15% margin to the said cost of production. Show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty on this 15% margin. Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions made before dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. 3. Learned SDR would submit that the impugned order is not correct. It is her submission that cost of raw material should be the cost at which the respondent received the raw material i.e. the cost of production plus 15% margin. It is her submission that respondent is availing Cenvat credit on-the duty paid on the main raw material and such duty is paid on the value as arrived at by the following provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-I - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 121 (Tri. - Bang.) has considered this issue and other decisions, which have attained finality and there is no contrary decision. He submits that the Larger Bench has not overruled or set aside the said judgment or order of the Tribunal in the case of Brindavan Tax Processors Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He would submit that the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Pawan Biscuits Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) and General Engineering Works v. CCE - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 295 (S.C.) will apply in this case while using the expression "cost" while applying/interpreting judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints case. He would submit that the issue needs to be referred to a furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t manufactured by a job worker, the actual cost of the inputs supplied by the principal should be taken into account or the value of the inputs, as worked out under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods)s Rules, 2000 should be taken into account?" 5.1 While answering these questions, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in paragraphs 17, 20, 24, 28 and 29 held as under : "17. From a bare reading it is clear the Supreme Court squarely followed the decision in Ujagar Prints case and the judgment cannot be read as laying down a different proposition. As a matter of fact, if we may say so with respect, a smaller Bench of two Judges could not have held otherwise, and if there is anything in the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also explained the relevance of the word 'cost' observing that value of an intermediate product when used as raw material, is cost of the raw material but for the purpose of determining its assessable value at the hands of job worker, what is relevant is the 'value' and not 'cost' in the sense of cost of manufacture of that product or raw material. The decision in Bhilwara Processors, if we may say so with respect, was rendered on a mis-reading of the decision in Pawan Biscuits Co. (P) Ltd. which had simply followed Ujagar Prints-III. 24. For example, Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules contains the formula for determining the value of the goods which are not sold by the assessee, but are used for consumption either himself, or on his behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Larger Bench covers the issue squarely against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue and hence, on the question of valuation of the goods, the matter is decided against the respondent. In view of this, impugned order to the extent it is contrary to the law as settled by the Larger Bench, is liable to be set aside and we do so. 7. At the same time, on perusal of the Order-in-Original, we find that the learned Adjudicating Authority has not given any findings as regards the actual value to be arrived, as submitted by the respondent before him. We find merits in the argument of the Counsel for the respondent that the cost of bulk pack of ultramarine blue will be the value as charged by M/s. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
