Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in valuing goods manufactured on job work basis, the assessable value was required to be determined on the basis of comparable goods sold by the principal manufacturer or by applying the cost construction method including job charges.
Analysis: The valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis was held to depend on the availability of the value of comparable goods; where such value is known, it is to be adopted, and the cost construction method is confined to cases where comparable value is not available. The record showed that the job worker cleared the textured yarn on the basis of the principal manufacturer's price, and that the declared price of comparable goods was higher than the value adopted by the job worker. The departmental challenge to the first appellate authority's reliance on the comparable-goods method therefore failed, and the prior unchallenged view on identical facts also supported the assessee's position.
Conclusion: The assessable value was rightly determined on the basis of comparable goods and not on the cost construction method; the demand was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the order in favour of the assessee was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: In valuation of job-worked goods, the value of comparable goods prevails where it is known, and the cost construction method applies only when no comparable value is available.