TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in respect of job-worked goods sold by the principal manufacturer at the time of removal, valuation was governed by Rule 10A(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or by Rule 10A(iii); (ii) Whether the demand relating to the other job-work transactions was barred by limitation and whether value of scrap generated on such job-work could be added for duty purposes.
Issue (i): Whether, in respect of job-worked goods sold by the principal manufacturer at the time of removal, valuation was governed by Rule 10A(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or by Rule 10A(iii).
Analysis: Rule 10A(i) applies where excisable goods are produced by a job-worker on behalf of a principal manufacturer and the goods are sold by the principal manufacturer for delivery at the time of removal, the buyer is unrelated, and price is the sole consideration. In that situation, the value is the transaction value of the goods sold by the principal manufacturer. Rule 10A(iii) operates only where clauses (i) and (ii) are inapplicable. Since duty had been discharged on the sale price of the principal manufacturer, the adjudicating authority's resort to Rule 10A(iii) was not justified.
Conclusion: The demand relating to the transaction covered by sale of goods by the principal manufacturer was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand relating to the other job-work transactions was barred by limitation and whether value of scrap generated on such job-work could be added for duty purposes.
Analysis: The show-cause notice was issued after the relevant period of April 2007 to December 2010, making the demand for the earlier part of the period time-barred. The assessee had also discharged duty on the scrap generated, and the situation could have been handled under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which made addition of scrap value unsustainable on the facts found.
Conclusion: The demand on these transactions was unsustainable on limitation and on merits and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in its entirety and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where job-worked goods are sold by the principal manufacturer at the time of removal, valuation must follow Rule 10A(i); Rule 10A(iii) is only residual, and a demand cannot survive when it is time-barred or when the value sought to be added is not legally includible on the facts found.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
