9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idharan, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellant M/s. Chennai Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd., is a job worker for M/s. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., (HCCB in short) during the period under dispute and were manufacturing and clearing Pre-Mix and Post-Mix syrup. They were using the materials supplied by HCCB and clearing the products on payment of appropriate duty. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w materials supplied to the job worker and the job charges is far less than the value already adopted by the assesse which is the basis of price declared by HCCB during the period under consideration. c. No evidence has been let in the Show cause notice that both are related persons under Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore the value adopted by HCCB need not be taken into consideration for val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n submitted that it is settled law that the value of job worked goods is required to be determined only on the basis of the landmark decision in the case of M/s. Ujjagar Prints Ltd. (supra) and even the Board s Circular No. 619/10/2002-CX dated 19.02.2002, clarified in para-3 that there can be no departure from the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints even under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the basis of selling price of the principal manufacturer. On the second issue whether Machine Rental Charges are includible in the assessable value, he submitted that the issue stands covered by the judgment in the case of Pepsico India Holding Ltd. (supra). 4. On behalf of the Revenue, Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order and grounds of appeal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been categorically held that the charges are not includible in the assessable value. 7. In view thereof, we find that the demand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified and the same is set aside. The appeal No. E/408/2006 filed by the appellant is allowed and consequently the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. ( Operative part of the order pronounced in the Open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
