9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, JJ. Appearance: Shri Manish Mohan, Authorized Representative (DR), for appellant Shri Vikram S. Nankani, Advocate, for respondent Per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-original No. 2/M-I/2005 dated 28.2.2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondent herein had cleared 'Compound of Aromatic Chemicals' falling under Chapter Heading 3302.90 to their contract manufacturers discharging duty on the value arrived on basis of cost construction method, Show-cause notices were issued alleging that the respondent had under valued the clearances to their contract manufacturers in order to evade duty. The show-cause notices covered the period from May 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urers is not the normal price nor it can be considered as a transaction value. It is the submission that the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 2002 (146) ELT 503 (S.C.) has held 'Therefore, the normal price would be the price at which the goods are sold in the market in the wholesale trade. Generally speaking, the normal price is the one at which goods are sold to the public'. It is the submission that the assessee has not produced any documents/details to consider the price declared by them as a normal price. It is also the submission that the price at which the respondent sold the aromatic compounds to the contract manufacturers could not be normal price, as it may be influenced, by the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct in the manufacture of respondent's tooth paste and tooth powder, as such the transaction between the respondent and contract manufacturer with regard to these goods is a transaction between principal and job worker. He would submit, that though the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the relationship between raw material suppliers and the contract manufacturer is principal to principal basis, valuation of the goods manufactured on job work basis for Central Excise duty should be carried out on the cost of material. It is the submission that the intermediate products; the price of which is under dispute is sold to the contract manufacturers and sister units only and is not otherwise sold to any other independent buyer and nor there is any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttained finality. It is his submission that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of MTR Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore 2010 (252) E.L.T.580 (Tri.-Bang.) squarely covers this proposition. It is his further submission that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Raigad 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.LB) would also cover the assessee's case inasmuch as the Larger Bench has held if there is a sale of production to independent buyers, the value adopted for such clearance should be assessable value. He would also rely upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Sai Mirra Innopharam P. Ltd. (SIMPL) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chennai-II & IV 2007 (215) E.L.T. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent with a contract manufacturers is for the manufacturing of their final products like tooth paste and tooth powder and subsequently to be cleared to the depot/consignment agents of the respondent on the value as per the provisions of Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act 1944. On this factual matrix, the findings of the adjudicating authority are very vital. The said findings recorded at paragraph 27, are reproduced. "Thus it has already been examined and established that out of the seven buyers five buyers are not related persons of the assessee. The show cause notices have not brought out any fresh facts to allege that material circumstances have changed in nay manner subsequently, to hold that these buyers were related p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned SDR that selling of the product to the public needs to be considered as only goods to be sold to the public is to say the least in presumption any basis. In this case the aromatic compounds cleared from the factory premises of the respondents were to independent manufacturers on an invoice under the provisions of Central Excise Act, and the Rules made thereunder. Such invoices are not disputed by the lower authorities and the price charged is only sought to be contested, that also without any cogent evidence. We find that the sale of aromatic compounds is for consumption and it need not be for sale to public. The contract manufacturers purchasing aromatic compounds from the respondent un-disputedly consume the same in the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
