9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of assessable value. At the same time one must keep in mind that different methods prescribed have to converge to a common valuation. Thus the correct method of ascertainment of value would be the method prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd. In view of the above the assessment done by the appellants is correct and as per law. - Decided in favour of assessee - APPEAL No. E/44/12 - ORDER NO. A/86908/2016-WZB/EB - Dated:- 1-4-2016 - Mr.S.S.Garg, Member (Judicial) AND Mr. Raju, Member (Technical). Shri.Durgesh Nadkarni, Advocate for the appellant Shri.Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Comm. (AR), for the respondent ORDER: 1. The appellants are manufacturers of chemicals. The manufacture of chemicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparable price method is the correct method for assessment. The decision is in context of captive clearance and not for job work. The AR has relied on the decision of Hon Apex court in case of IPF Vikram India 2008 226) ELT 4 (SC) where the facts are substantially different as the Principal had substantial control over the job worker. Moreover the decision of Hon Apex court in case of Ujjagar Prints (Supra) was not cited before the court. 4 We have gone through rival contentions. 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the appellants have not produce any evidence to substantiate that the goods manufactured on job work are different from their own produce. They had taken up this ground in the appeal as well as ground 9E(V), ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the two are on principal to principal basis. The mere fact that the buyer is supplying some raw materials free of cost to the job-worker, will not be sufficient ground to contend that the dealings between the two are not at arms length. Goods manufactured on job-work were earlier assessed under the residuary Rule 7 of the erstwhile valuation Rules of 1975 read with rule 6(b) read with the Apex Court decisions referred to above. 3. Under the new valuation provisions, introduced with effect from 1-7-2000, there is no departure from the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above two decisions, in respect of goods manufactured on job-work basis. In other words goods manufactured on job-work basis after 1-7-2000 will continue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eep in mind that different methods prescribed have to converge to a common valuation. For example, as stated above, Rule 6(b)(i) prescribes comparable goods method, Rule 6(b)(ii) prescribes cost method and Rule 7 which contemplates best judgment assessment states that the Assessing Officer is free to apply any of the methods prescribed by Rules 1 to 6 of 1975 Rules. We would like to, therefore, emphasize the aspect of convergence. It is not possible to accept wide variation in the result. The Department may apply different methods of valuation, but it has to ultimately ascertain by applying rule of convergence the estimated ad valorem value which would constitute the basis of assessable value. 5. The CBEC has after considering the lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
