9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of appellant. The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the Appellants case [ 2018 (2) TMI 139 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] following the judgement in the case of M/s. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs CCE, Mangalore [ 2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ], where it was held that ' it is undisputed that LABSA is manufactured by job worker and cleared to HUL for further consumption and the said LABSA is the intermediate product required by HUL which is manufactured or produced by the appellant as a job worker. The key words in Rule 8 that needs to be interpreted are consumption by an assessee or on his behalf for applying the said Rule for arriving at valuation or determination of goods. In the case in hand, it is very clear and not disputed that the appellant is not consuming the said LABSA nor is it consumed on his behalf by HUL. In our considered view, the provisions of Rule 8 will not get attracted in this case.' Conclusion - Rule 8 of the CEVR applies only when goods are consumed by the assessee or on their behalf, and that valuation should be based on the cost of materials plus job work charges when these conditions are not met. The demand confirmed is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CEVR could not be applied when the Appellant had not captively consumed the goods as it was the principal manufacturer who gets such goods manufactured on his behalf by the Appellant. ii. It was averred that the assessable value in respect of job work was to be determined based on the cost of manufacture of the goods and job work charges in view of the decisions in the case of Ujjagar Prints [1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC)] and M/s. Pawan Biscuits Ltd. [2000 (120) ELT 24 (SC)] which was also clarified by CBEC in Circular No.619/10/2002-CX dated 19.02.2002. iii. It was submitted that the impugned order had erred in relying on CBEC Circular F.No. 6/15/2009-CX dated 31.03.2010 wherein it was clarified that the assessable value would be determined in terms of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 10A read with Rule 8 of CEVR by adopting 110% of Cost of production of the goods as assessable value, where the goods manufactured by a job worker was captively consumed by the principal manufacturer. It was pointed out that the said Circular was analysed and examined by the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mangalore [2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri.-Bang.)] and it was held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Valuation Rules which applies when goods are not sold. The appellant does not captively consume the goods nor does M/s. Marico consume it on behalf of appellant. The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the Appellants case vide Final Order No. 40293-40297/2018 dated 02.02.2018 following the judgement in the case of M/s. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs CCE, Mangalore [2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri.-Bang.)], the extracts of which has been reproduced below: - 6. The undisputed fact in these cases is the appellant herein is a job worker manufacturing LABSA for M/s. HUL. It is also undisputed that HUL gives LAB and the appellant uses other consumables in the manufacture of LABSA. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been valuing the said LABSA cleared from factory premises, based upon the cost of material plus processing charges prior to 1-4-2007 when the provisions of Rule 10A were inserted into the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. It is also undisputed that the said LABSA is returned back to M/s. HUL for further consumption in their factory premises for manufacturing of soaps and detergents. It is nobody s case that LABSA consumed by HUL is on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o capture the tax on the goods, on the value of the said goods when cleared to the ultimate consumers. In the case in hand, we find that provisions of Rule 10A(i) and (ii) does not arise as has been recorded by us in the earlier paragraphs. Provisions of rule 10A(iii) gets attracted which talks about a situation where 10A(i) or (ii) does not apply. The said provision (iii) very clearly mandate that in a case not covered under clause (i) or (ii), the provisions of foregoing rules, wherever applicable shall mutatis and mutandis apply for determination of value of the excisable goods. This would indicate that the provisions of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 has to be gone through serially. It is not the Revenue s case that provisions of Rules 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would also apply in this case. Revenue is of the view that provisions of Rule 8 will apply. In order to understand the Revenue s case, we reproduce the provisions of Rule 8. RULE 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be [one hundred and ten p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon by the learned SDR of this Bench in the case of Ultrapack is on a different set of facts i.e. in that case, the Ultramarine blue was sent in bulk form by M/s. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. and the said product was repacked by the assessee, for Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. and hence it was held that Rule 8 will be applicable. It can be seen that in that case, Rule 8 was invoked because it was undisputed that repacking was done on behalf of Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. which would clearly attract the provisions of Rule 8. The situation in the current appeal before us is totally different which has been set out by us in the earlier paragraphs. In view of this, the decision of this bench in the case of Ultrapack will not be applicable. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside and we do so. Impugned orders set aside and appeals allowed. We find that the above decision of the Tribunal was followed in subsequent judgements delivered by the Tribunal in the case of Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman [2012 (276) ELT 87 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] which was aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
