2019 (3) TMI 1784 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal excludes scrap value from transaction value, granting relief to appellant in excisable goods case.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant in a case concerning the valuation of excisable goods at the hand of a job worker. The Tribunal held that ... Valuation of goods at the hands of job-worker - waste and scrap - inclusion in assessable value or not - HELD THAT:- The issue at hand is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in LAWKIM LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-II [2007 (3) TMI 158 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] where it was held that a job worker who manufactures the intermediate product, is not liable to pay any duty thereon - also, in the identical issue in PR. ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TIRUPATHI [2009 (3) TMI 444 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] this Tribunal held that scrap/ waste are intermediate goods not liable to duty, thus its value cannot be considered in the hands of job worker also confirmed by Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS P.R. ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. [2010 (9) TMI 1072 - SC ORDER]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved: Valuation of excisable goods at the hand of a job worker, consideration of waste/scrap arising during processing, inclusion of waste/scrap in the transaction value of goods sold by the job worker.Analysis:1. Valuation of excisable goods at the hand of a job worker: The issue in this case revolves around the valuation of excisable goods at the hand of a job worker. The Department contended that waste/scrap arising during the processing of excisable goods should be considered in fixing the processing charge. The Revenue argued that since this waste/scrap is excisable and has value, it should be included in the transaction value of the goods sold by the job worker.2. Contentions of the parties: The appellant, represented by Ms. Surabhi Sinha, argued that a similar issue had been considered by a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Delhi. Referring to the case of PR Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., the appellant's advocate emphasized that the value of scrap arising during processing should not be included in the job work value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The advocate relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v/s PR Rolling mills Pvt. Ltd to support the argument that the issue was no longer res-integra.3. Arguments by the Revenue: On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, relied on the decision in General Engineering Works v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The Revenue argued that the Supreme Court had affirmed the view that scrap arising from the manufacture of certain goods should be included in the valuation.4. Judgment: After considering the arguments and case records, the Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by the decision in M/s Lawkin Pvt Ltd. v/s Commissioner. The Tribunal also took into account the Supreme Court decision in General Engineering Works v/s Commissioner. It was noted that in cases where the agreement did not specify the inclusion of scrap value or its return to the principal, and in line with the decision in PR Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., the value of scrap/waste as intermediate goods not liable to duty cannot be considered in the hands of the job worker. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential benefits, if any.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the rationale behind the Tribunal's decision in resolving the matter of valuation of excisable goods at the hand of a job worker.