9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is extracted herein below :- I have carefully gone through the submissions made by the appellants in their grounds of appeal as well as at the time of personal hearing held on 19-1-2001. The lower adjudicating authority in his impugned order has held that the appellants have removed the goods to their jobworker for Ion and Gold plating without following the procedure under Rule 57F(3) and that the value of such Ion and Gold plating were not included in the assessable value of the watch cases cleared by them, and therefore, the prices are not the normal price under Section 4(i)(b) of the Central Excise Act, read with Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Whereas on the other hand the appellants have contended that they were under the bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been accepted by the Department, where it is held that the process of Gold/Ion plating is not a process amounting to manufacture and therefore it does not attract payment of excise duty, consequently following of any Central Excise procedure. In the present case also the appellants have sent the watch cases after manufacture to another job worker for Ion and Gold plating for which the job charges was paid by M/s. Timex Watches Ltd., Noida directly to the job worker and after the Ion/Gold plating the said cases were brought back by the appellant and cleared to their clients i.e., M/s. Timex Watches, on payment of duty on the value agreed up in the purchase order placed on them. Furthermore, it is well settled that penalty can be levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore cited supra and since the/appellants have not received any charges for such Gold/Ion plating done at the job worker end, no cost of such process is includible in the assessable value of the watch cases, which view is further fortified by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass Industries. Further more as contended by the appellants in their grounds of appeal, M/s. Timex Watches Ltd. (the primary manufacturer) have also furnished certificate to the effect that while arriving at the assessable value of the watches cleared by them all inputs cost, including gold plating charges have been taken into consideration. In view of my discussions in the aforesaid para, I am of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted order noted that the process of Ion and Gold plating is a process of manufacture and therefore, following the ratio of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of UOI v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] held that the differential duty was not liable to be added since the watch cases serve a purpose even without Ion/Gold plating and there was no charge in the commercial product after the plating is carried out. He also looked into the certificate produced and noted that the primary manufacturer while arriving at the assessable value cleared by them had taken into consideration all input costs including gold plating charges and there was no revenue loss. 2. Ld. DR pointed out that the appellants had cleared the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
