9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue relates to valuation of excisable goods in the hands of a job worker. Normally one would have thought that the issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and Pawan Biscuits - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.). But no. 3. M/s. CSFL Pharma and M/s. Wallace Pharma are the principal manufacturer who got their P P medicines through the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AB. The period in dispute is April 2000 to October 2001. Concept of transaction value for the purpose of assessment was introduced w.e.f. 1-7-2000. The Department holds that the value of the impugned good is determinable under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 7 of Valuation Rules. 4. Rule 7 of valuation Rules read with "where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. in the present case no such declaration is given as admitted by the appellant. The Commissioner thereupon holds that the price at which goods are sold by the principal manufacturers should be the basis for determining of the value and since the appellant has not disclosed such price (the price at which the principals sold their goods) he has suppressed vital information rendering himself liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer for any reason the situation would be different. The department does not hold that the appellant is not a manufacturer. The fact that differential duty is demanded from him is a pointer in this direction. 7. The Commissioners' reliance on Rule 7 of Valuation Rules is also faulty. He seemed to be contending that since the goods are removed on a consignment basis to the depots of the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
