Job-work valuation and brand name exemption: copyright value excluded, but third-party branding defeated the exemption.

In job-work manufacture of video cassettes, assessable value was confined to the cost of raw material, the job worker's value addition and profit, and did not include the copyright value belonging to the master cassette owner because no copyright rights were acquired in manufacture. The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where another person's brand name appeared on the cassettes, with "affix" construed broadly to cover brand identification on the product itself. On merits, the Revenue succeeded on the exemption issue, but the demand failed because the extended period was inapplicable and the claim was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessable value of video cassettes manufactured on job work basis was to include the value of the copyright held by the owner of the master cassette. (ii) Whether the goods were disentitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. because the brand name of another person appeared on the cassettes.

Issue (i): Whether the assessable value of video cassettes manufactured on job work basis was to include the value of the copyright held by the owner of the master cassette.

Analysis: The value of goods cleared by a job worker is to be determined on the basis of the cost of the raw material, the value added by the job worker, and the profit margin. The fact that the copyright in the content of the tape belonged to another person did not make that copyright value part of the assessable value, because no rights in the copyright were acquired by the respondent through the manufacturing process.

Conclusion: The assessable value was not to include the value of the copyright, and this issue was decided against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were disentitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. because the brand name of another person appeared on the cassettes.

Analysis: The expression "affix" in the exemption notification was construed broadly to cover brand identification appearing on the video cassette contents, and not merely a paper label or sticker physically attached to the goods. Since the brand name of another person appeared on the product, the notification was held inapplicable on merits.

Conclusion: The goods were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: On merits, the Revenue succeeded on the notification issue, but the demand could not be sustained because the extended period was held inapplicable and the demand was time-barred; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In job-work manufacture, assessable value is confined to the cost of raw materials plus value addition and profit, while brand name or copyright value of another person is not includible unless it is part of the consideration for the goods; exemption notifications may be denied where the brand name of another person is affixed in substance, not merely by physical label.

---