TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns order, approves appellant's valuation method in job work goods case.</h1> <h3>Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur</h3> Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur - TMI Issues:Valuation of job work goods based on Ujagar Prints case principles, rejection of Chartered Accountant certificate by lower authority, inclusion of cost elements in the valuation, dispute over job charges rate.Valuation of Job Work Goods:The case involved the valuation of job work goods manufactured by the appellant, guided by the principles set by the Supreme Court in the Ujagar Prints case. The dispute primarily revolved around the quantum of the cost of manufacture, with the lower authority challenging the Chartered Accountant certificate's validity. The certificate included the cost of DEO and packing material, essential elements in the valuation process. The job charges rate was a point of contention, with the lower authority claiming discrepancies. However, the agreement between the appellant and the principal supplier clearly stated the job charges as Rs. 103 per kg, contradicting the lower authority's argument of Rs. 109 per kg. The Tribunal found the valuation method followed by the appellant, as certified by the Chartered Accountant, to be accurate and in compliance with the Ujagar Prints principles. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.Rejection of Chartered Accountant Certificate:The lower authority rejected the Chartered Accountant certificate provided by the appellant, citing missing elements in the cost calculation. However, upon careful examination of the certificate, it was evident that the cost of DEO and packing material was indeed included. The Tribunal found the certificate to be comprehensive and accurate, supporting the appellant's valuation method. The rejection of the certificate by the lower authority was deemed factually incorrect, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.Inclusion of Cost Elements:One of the key points of contention was the inclusion of all relevant cost elements in the valuation process. The lower authority argued that certain elements, such as the cost of DEO and packing material, were not added to the cost of production. However, the Chartered Accountant certificate clearly indicated the inclusion of these elements, validating the appellant's valuation approach. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all cost components in the valuation to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal standards.Dispute Over Job Charges Rate:A significant aspect of the case was the dispute over the job charges rate applied in the valuation process. The appellant contended that the job charges rate of Rs. 103 per kg, as per the agreement with the principal supplier, was accurate. The lower authority, however, insisted on a rate of Rs. 109 per kg, leading to discrepancies in the valuation. By referencing the agreement clause specifying the job charges rate, the Tribunal clarified that the rate of Rs. 103 per kg was correct. Resolving this dispute was crucial in determining the accuracy of the valuation and ultimately led to the setting aside of the impugned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
