2025 (3) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Job work manufacturer's valuation method upheld, Rule 8 deemed inapplicable for customer-supplied materials

CESTAT Bangalore held that the appellant's valuation method was proper for job work manufacturing. The tribunal found Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation ... Determination of value in terms of Rule 10A read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or under Rule 8 of the Rules - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The value adopted by them is cost of raw material supplied by their customers plus cost of raw material procured by them plus conversion charges which includes profit. Rule 10A(iii) is applicable in case the goods are captively consumed, or the goods are used by other companies on their behalf. In this case the goods are manufactured on job work basis and supplied to the principal manufacturer, who manufacturers finished goods using the material/goods supplied by the appellant, therefore in the facts of the case, it is found that Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable and the method of valuation adopted by the appellant is proper and therefore the demand of duty along with the interest and imposition of penalty are not tenable. Conclusion - The method of valuation adopted by the appellant, based on the cost of raw materials supplied by customers, materials procured by them, conversion charges, and profit, was deemed appropriate. Appeal allowed. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT Bangalore, involved the case of M/s. Pearl Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of 'Bare & Insulated Copper/Aluminum Strips & Wires'. The core issue revolved around the determination of the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellant to their customers for the purpose of central excise duty calculation. The Revenue alleged that the value should be determined under Rule 10A(iii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, while the appellant argued that Rule 8 was not applicable to their situation as the goods were manufactured on a job work basis and supplied to principal manufacturers for further use in their own finished goods.The appellant self-assessed their liability for central excise duties and filed returns accordingly. Following a periodic audit by the Revenue, a show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellant should have determined the assessable value by adopting 110% of the cost of production under Rule 10A(iii) read with Rules 8 and 9. The demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was made. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.The appellant contended that the goods cleared were not sold as such but used by the customers for further manufacturing, making Rule 10A(iii) inapplicable. They cited several decisions that supported their position, emphasizing that Rule 8 did not apply in their case. The appellant also challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC, arguing against any deliberate defiance of the law.The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, found in favor of the appellant. They held that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was not applicable to the appellant's situation as the goods were manufactured on a job work basis and supplied to principal manufacturers for further use. Therefore, the method of valuation adopted by the appellant, based on the cost of raw materials supplied by customers, materials procured by them, conversion charges, and profit, was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including those of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Tribunal, to support their conclusion.As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 13.02.2025.