9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR [ 2023 (2) TMI 1232 - CESTAT MUMBAI] holding that money value of the scrap retained by the Appellant does not represent additional consideration for the Appellant and it is not liable to be included in the assessable value of the job worked goods, being cleared on payment of duty to the manufacturer. There is no substantial change of law in the meantime except inclusion of Rule 10(A) which CBEC have clarified vide its Circular dated 31.03.2010 that once goods manufactured by job workers are not sold by the Principal Manufacturer but are consumed by the Principal manufacturer, Provision of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 that provides for determination of value on the basis of 110% of the cost of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up to July 2012, Appellant had paid Excise Duty on clearance of rolled products to the input suppliers/ principal manufacturer on assessable value determined in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 by adding 10% to the cost of production and from August 2012 onwards, at the instance of Respondent-Department, it had cleared rolled products to the input supplier by determining assessable value as per the formula developed in Ujagar Prints decision but department did not agree with such mode of payment and made a demand by including scrap value with conversion charges and re-determining assessable value accordingly. On that basis it had raised demand periodically through several Show-cause notices. The matter was adjudicated by Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esale the goods received from the job worker as they have further processed the same, determination of the assessable value on the basis of provision contained in Rule 10A(iii) of the Valuation Rules, 2000 was rightly applied in taking the assessable value at 110% in terms of Rule 8 which is in conformity to the Circular of the Central Board of Excise Customs issued Vide F. No. 6/15/2009-CXI dated 31.03.2010 as the manufacturers (input suppliers) had capitively consumed the goods supplied by the job workers. Alternate argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was that no part of the demand was sustainable if the procedure mentioned under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was to be followed as has been held by the Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and drawn our attention to the fact that following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of General Engineering Works Vs. CCE reported in 2007 (212) ELT 295 (SC), learned Commissioner (Appeals) had given his finding that needs no interference by this Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Appellant objected to the argument by saying that after General Engineering Works judgment, in the same month on 17.03.2005 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in International Auto [2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC)] case was pronounced that has been followed in other subsequent judgments and referring to the said General Engineering Works only, CESTAT passed P.R. Rolli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
