9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods on job work basis neither Rule 10A(iii) nor Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 would have any applicability and the goods have to be assessed to duty in terms of Ujagar Prints formula. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of GLAMOUR TIN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II [2014 (5) TMI 1243 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Tribunals decisions in the case of Indian Extrusions vs. CCE, Mumbai [2012 (5) TMI 271 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] can also be referred to. The said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Pvt. Ltd. stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX. Conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2007. During the adjudication, the original adjudicating authority upheld the Revenues stand that the provisions of Rule 10A(iii) would apply. Inasmuch as the said Rule allows determination of the assessable value based upon the earlier Rules i.e., from Rule 1 to 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, he adopted the provisions of Rule 8 which allows adoption of assessable value on the basis of 110% of the cost of the product. 2.1 On appeal before Commissioner (A), he upheld the applicability of Rule 8 but remanded the matter for re-adjudication on the basis of CAS 4 principle. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has strongly contested the said view of the Revenue on the ground that Rule 8 is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplies made to M/s. Nestle, they are disputing the issue inasmuch as M/s. Nestle has not agreed to pay the central excise duty to the appellant at a higher assessable value. She submits that clearance of goods at the higher central excise value in the case of M/s. Cadbury would not debar the appellant from contesting the applicability of Rule 8 to the job work done on behalf of M/s. Nestle, inasmuch as there is no concept of clearance of comparable goods, in the new rules, which was there in the erstwhile valuation rules. As such she submits that it is the legal issue which requires to be decided. 6. As Regards the applicability of Rule 4, she submits that the same is applicable only when the assessable goods are being sold by the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal is allowed with consequential relief. However, we make it clear that as per the statement of the learned advocate they are not contesting the supplies made to M/s. Cadbury in the present case and as such, our order relate to only job work for M/s. Nestle. We also make is clear that inasmuch as the Revenue has not expressed any doubts about the correctness of the value adopted in terms of Ujagar Prints formula, we are not going into the correctness of the same. The said value so disclosed by the appellant, for future, can be verified by the Revenue if they so deem fit.
In a nutshell the appeal is allowed with consequential relief and the impugned order is set aside.
(Order pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
