Independent job-work valuation: amended place of removal does not alter assessable value; comparable goods or cost-plus method applies.

In independent job-work arrangements where the principal supplies raw material and the finished goods are sent to the principal's depots, the amended definition of "place of removal" does not alter valuation. The assessable value must be determined under the excise valuation rules by reference to comparable goods under Rule 6(b)(i); if that is not possible, valuation falls back to Rule 6(b)(ii) on cost of manufacture plus notional profit, to reach the nearest ascertainable equivalent price under Section 4. The Tribunal's view was upheld, and the demand and penalty did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended definition of "place of removal" altered the valuation of goods manufactured by an independent job worker and sent to the principal's depots; (ii) what was the proper method of valuation for such goods under the excise valuation rules.

Issue (i): Whether the amended definition of "place of removal" altered the valuation of goods manufactured by an independent job worker and sent to the principal's depots.

Analysis: The assessee was only a job worker. The raw material was supplied by the principal, the goods were processed by the assessee, and the finished goods were sent back to the principal's depots. The circular relied upon clarified that where an independent job worker processes goods and returns them to the supplier, the amended concept of "place of removal" does not make any difference to valuation in such cases.

Conclusion: The amended definition of "place of removal" did not affect valuation in the assessee's case.

Issue (ii): What was the proper method of valuation for such goods under the excise valuation rules.

Analysis: For goods processed by a job worker, valuation was to be made on the basis of the price of comparable goods under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules or, if that was not possible, under Rule 6(b)(ii) on the basis of cost of manufacture plus notional profit, so as to reach the nearest ascertainable equivalent of the price contemplated under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The proper valuation was to be determined on the basis of comparable goods, and failing that, on cost of manufacture plus notional profit.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was upheld and the demand and penalty did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: In the case of an independent job worker manufacturing goods for a principal, the amended "place of removal" concept does not displace valuation under the excise valuation rules, and the assessable value must be determined by comparable goods or, failing that, by cost of manufacture plus notional profit to reach the nearest ascertainable equivalent price.

---