9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied by Ranbaxy should be added in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant - Held that: - Merely because the certain raw material was supplied by the principal under Rule 57F or 57 AC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, the inclusion of cost of such raw material cannot be avoided. Since the appellant have opted to job-work on payment of excise duty then the correct as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch goods, the Ranbaxy provided two types of critical raw materials namely - (i) Para Nitro Toluene, and (ii) Liquid Bromine under Rule 57F (4)/ 57AC (5)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant have not included the value of such pre-supply inputs used in the manufacture of job-work goods. The case of the department is that the value of such two types of critical raw material supplied by Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. vs. CCE - 2006 (195) ELT 38 (Tri-Mum) upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2015 (325) ELT 10 (SC). He further submits that the cum duty value should have been adopted for calculating the differential duty as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). He further submits that the highest value of the said raw materials su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of final product should be taken for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value. Therefore, there is no reason why the cost of two raw materials supplied by Ranbaxy should not be included in the assessable value. Merely because the certain raw material was supplied by the principal under Rule 57F or 57 AC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, the inclusion of cost of such raw material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the contention of the appellant that highest value of the raw materials was adopted, we find that the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the raw material received by them from M/S Ranbaxy have the lower price. Therefore, in absence of any supporting documents produced by the appellant, the claim made by them on this count is rejected. 5. As per our above discussions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
