9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Malt‟, which was sold by the appellant and the sole proceeds were retained by them. The profit earned on the sale of sprouts, therefore, has been part of the value of the Barley Malt‟ manufactured and cleared by the appellant on job work to the principal manufacturer. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in UJAGAR PRINTS ETC. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] also the clarification issued by the CBEC in Circular No.619/10/2002-CX dated 19.02.2002, where the Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the appellant on the issue of inclusion of the value of the sprouts, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demands. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prout etc. would accrue to the benefit of the manufacturer‟ i.e. the appellants. Therefore, it appeared that in order to arrive at the cost of production of Malt‟ in such a case, value of sprout sold by the appellants to third parties was also required to be added to the cost of production of Malt . Show cause notice dated 2.5.2018 was issued to the appellant for evading the payment of central excise duty amounting to Rs.73,35,698/- during the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 on Malt manufactured by them on job work in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) read with Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed to the extent of Rs.14,88,495/- alongwith interest and penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, both the Authorities observed that the sprouts arose during the processing of Barely‟ for manufacture of Barely Malt‟, which was sold by the appellant and the sole proceeds were retained by them. The profit earned on the sale of sprouts, therefore, has been part of the value of the Barley Malt‟ manufactured and cleared by the appellant on job work to the principal manufacturer. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Ujagar Prints Ltd. 1989(39) ELT 493 (SC) also the clarification issued by the CBEC in Circular No.619/10/2002-CX dated 19.02.2002 and also the Final Order Final Order No.57643-57644/2017 dated 01.11.2017 Tribunal in the case of the appellant themselves Order dated 01.11.2017, where the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
