TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in valuing goods manufactured on job work basis, the cost of jigs, tools and services supplied free by the principal and used in manufacture could be included in the assessable value; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules was liable to be sustained in full.
Issue (i): Whether, in valuing goods manufactured on job work basis, the cost of jigs, tools and services supplied free by the principal and used in manufacture could be included in the assessable value.
Analysis: The valuation of job-work goods has to be made on the basis of the landed cost of materials plus the job charges, including the job worker's profit. Where the principal supplies items or services free of cost which are integral to the manufacture, their money value must be added to the assessable value. On the facts found, the principal and the job worker acted at arm's length, and there was no proof of mutuality of interest or financial flow back sufficient to displace the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority. The cost relating to jigs, tools and personnel supplied by the principal was therefore correctly brought into the assessable value.
Conclusion: The inclusion of the value of free supplies and related services in the assessable value was upheld, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules was liable to be sustained in full.
Analysis: Although the demand based on the undisclosed elements of cost was sustained, the assessee was a sick unit and the differential duty involved was below the stated threshold considered by the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered the original penalty excessive and reduced it.
Conclusion: The penalty was sustained in principle but reduced to Rs. 50,000, in favour of the assessee to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the Commissioner was largely affirmed, while the penalty was moderated on account of the assessee's condition, resulting in partial relief to the assessee and rejection of the Revenue's challenge.
Ratio Decidendi: In job-work valuation, the assessable value includes the landed cost of materials and the money value of free supplies or services used in manufacture, while penalty may be reduced on equitable considerations even where the duty demand is upheld.
TaxTMI 
