Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by other companies on their behalf. In this case the goods are manufactured on job work basis and supplied to the principal manufacturer, who manufacturers finished goods using the material/goods supplied by the appellant, therefore in the facts of the case, it is found that Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable and the method of valuation adopted by the appellant is proper and therefore the demand of duty along with the interest and imposition of penalty are not tenable. Conclusion - The method of valuation adopted by the appellant, based on the cost of raw materials supplied by customers, materials procured by them, conversion charges, and profit, was deemed appropriate. Appeal allowed.
MR. P. DINESHA, ME .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of raw material (received from customers) plus own purchased goods plus conversion charges including their profit. The final product cleared by the appellant to the customer is in turn used by the respective customers for further manufacture of their final goods. Therefore, the final product cleared by the appellant are not sold as such by the customer, but they are used by the customers for further manufacture and is a crucial undisputed fact. Pursuant to audit by the revenue the show cause notice dated 06.09.2010 was issued, alleging that post introduction of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 with effect from 01.04.2007, in terms of Rule 10A(iii) read with Rules 8 and 9, the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st of raw material plus conversion charges including profit is justified in terms of Rule 10A(iii) read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000; the learned counsel further submits that the issue is no longer res integra and is settled in terms of the following decisions, which are identical and squarely applicable to the facts of the present appeal; (a) Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri.-Bang.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX (b) Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (276) ELT 87 (Tri.-Ahmd.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX (c) CCE Vs. Malters and Blenders India Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-296-CESTAT-DEL affirmed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 whereas revenue has invoked Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, which is held to be inapplicable in catena decisions cited, supra. Further the entire issue revolves around statutory interpretation and in the facts and circumstances the invocation of extended period of limitation against the appellant is not justified in law, in support of the above contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Cosmic Dye Chemical V. CCE, - 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC), Continental Foundation Joint Venture V. CCE - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) and several other decisions. The learned counsel further submits that imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC, ibid is not justified a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re manufactured on job work basis and supplied to the principal manufacturer, who manufacturers finished goods using the material/goods supplied by the appellant, therefore in the facts of the case we find that Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable and the method of valuation adopted by the appellant is proper and therefore the demand of duty along with the interest and imposition of penalty are not tenable. We find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Tribunal as mentioned, supra. Consequently, the demand of duty along with the interest and imposition of penalty are liable to be set aside and we do so. 9. In view of the above discussion the appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates