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 rubber-lining or re-rubber-lining of tanks and vessels received from customers or in old used condition amounts to manufacture; (ii) Whether, for valuation under Notification No. 176/77, the value of tanks and vessels supplied by customers can be included along with job charges.
Issue (i): Whether rubber-lining or re-rubber-lining of tanks and vessels received from customers or in old used condition amounts to manufacture.
Analysis: The activity of rubber-lining of customer-supplied or old used tanks and vessels was treated as materially indistinguishable from re-rubberising and relining of old used rollers. The settled principle applied was that such repair or relining activity does not bring into existence a new manufactured article. The review notice seeking to reopen that issue was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether, for valuation under Notification No. 176/77, the value of tanks and vessels supplied by customers can be included along with job charges.
Analysis: For job work valuation, only the cost incurred by the job worker in relation to manufacture is relevant. The value of raw materials or goods supplied by customers cannot be added to the assessable value for computing the clearance value of the job worker. On that basis, the direction of the appellate authority to include the value of tanks and vessels supplied by customers was corrected.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part: the review notice was quashed and the valuation direction was set aside, while the finding treating rubber-lining of manufacturer-supplied tanks and vessels as manufacture was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation of job work, only the cost incurred by the job worker in relation to manufacture is includible, and customer-supplied materials or goods are not part of the assessable value; relining or re-rubber-lining of old used goods does not amount to manufacture.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
