9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent - Principal manufacturer on his own dictating the assessable value to be declared - This has come out clearly in the statement mentioned by the appellant has not rebutted the same - Even Ld. Advocate is claiming that they are declaring value as per CAS-4 - CAS-4 valuation scheme is applicable for goods meant for capative consumption, which is not the case here. The transaction between appellant and principal manufacturer cannot be considered as on principal to principal basis - the only way left is to assess the value based upon M.R.P. of similar goods after giving abatement as prescribed and on proportionate basis - This is what has been ordered by Commissioner (Appeals) – Decided against Assessee. - E/438/08-MUM - Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner Final Order Nos. A/346-3482011-WZB/C-II(EB), dated 13-4-2011. (iv) Omni Protech Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2011 (274) ELT 377 (tri-Mum) Ld. Advocate's main contention is that as per these judgments, value of the goods (physicians sample) manufactured has to be determined as per Apex Court judgement in the case of Ujagar Prints Case (1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC) i.,e. cost of raw material, job charges and profit. In view of this position, valuation cannot be on M.R.P. basis but on cost construction method. Ld. Advocate also stated that they are paying duty on 110% of cost of production CAS-4 basis. 3. Ld. AR, on the other hand argued that there is no dispute that valuation of physician's sample when manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgement of Apex Court. However, we find in this case appellant's themselves are not assessing duty as envisaged in Ujagar Print's case, which requires specifying cost of all the raw materials, packing material supplied by the principal manufacturer, job charges and profit element. In fact, principal manufacturer on his own dictating the assessable value to be declared. This has come out clearly in the statement mentioned by the Ld. AR. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has not rebutted the same. Even Ld. Advocate is claiming that they are declaring value as per CAS-4. CAS-4 valuation scheme is applicable for goods meant for capative consumption, which is not the case here. Thus the transaction between appellant and principal manufacturer ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
