9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Rule 8 would apply to RBIL and they accordingly discharged the duty liability. The formula which is sought to be applied for discharge of duty liability by the appellant is cost of raw material plus Job worker s charges and on this amount, the Central Excise Duty needs to be discharged. In the case in hand, appellant undisputedly is a job worker and includes the cost of job charges but while arriving at the raw material cost has considered only cost of production shown by RBIL in their invoice when they cleared the Ultramarine Robin Blue in bulk - In the case in hand, there being no dispute as to the fact that appellant is job worker of RBIL, has to consider the cost/ value of the raw materials. In the case in hand, raw material f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharge the Central Excise Duty on such repacked goods. Appellants were discharging the Central Excise Duty on such repacked goods but valuation of the said goods was not done in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise valuation Rules is the allegation of the department which stems from the price declarations filed by the appellant. Appellant herein had declared price of Ultramarine Robin Blue in bulk as the basic price and did not include the 15% mark up as required under the provisions of Central Excise valuation Rules. Two show cause notices were issued covering the period from July, 2000 to February, 2002, demanding the differential duty and demand of the interest along with proposal for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f production as per Rule 8 has been only misinterpreted and demands raised by invoking extended period of limitation must be set aside. 5. Learned departmental representative, on the other hand, submits that on valuation issue this Bench has already taken a view against the assessee on to that the value needs to be considered by the principal manufacturer of Ultramarine Robin Blue. It is his further submission that on the question of limitation, the appellant had been filing the declaration by reducing the cost of production subsequent to such case which has been raised on them i.e., on 18.10.2001. From that date, department was made aware the improper deductions claimed by the appellant. Hence, the demand confirmed by invoking extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ultramarine Robin Blue in bulk. Appellant did not considered the amount of 15% mark up which is added to the cost of production by RBIL, entertaining a view that it is not the cost of production. We are afraid to state that appellant has totally misinterpreted the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints had specifically stated that the job workers should consider the cost/ value of raw materials and their job charges for discharging the Central Excise duty, if an assessee is working as a job worker. In the case in hand, there being no dispute as to the fact that appellant is job worker of RBIL, has to consider the cost/ value of the raw materials. In the case in hand, raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
