Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID : 110832
- 0 -

determination of assessable value for job work transaction

Date 24 Aug 2016
Replies6 Answers
Views 1974 Views
Asked By

We are executing the job work for conversion of MS-Slab to MS-Hot Rolled coil on or behalf of the principal manufacturer. We have been asked by the said manufacturer to dispatch the materials from our plant to one of the plant of the principal manufacturer located in different location for use in further manufacturing activities.

Your valuable opinion is solicited to clarify legal position for arriving assessable value for discharge of Excise duty on the HR product under Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000

6 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
- 0
Replied on Aug 24, 2016
1.

Sh.Pranab Panda Ji,

In this situation, the assessable value is to be determined under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. You are working for and on behalf of Principal manufacturer.Hence job-worked goods belong to Principal Manufacturer and the same are to be transferred to one of the units of Principal Manufacturer for further manufacture of excisable goods. Therefore, it is a clear case of captive consumption.Rule 10 A (iii) also stands for Rule 8 ibid in this case.

- 0
Replied on Aug 24, 2016
2.

I am 100% agree with view of Sh. kasturi sethiji...

- 0
Replied on Aug 24, 2016
3.

Thanks Mr.Kasturi Sir, for your valuable opinion.

We would also request to review the position, as per our understanding Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 will not apply for the transaction between the organisations those are not related to each other as per parameter specified in the Central Excise Statue and only applicable whenever the manufacturer is transferring the goods for his own consumption. More over the CBEC’s clarification dated 31.03.2010 has categorically discussed in the matter of Advance Surfactants India Limited Vs CCE, Mangalore reported in 2011(274) ELT.261 (Tri-Bang.) =  2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and decided in favour of assessee.

However there are also contrary views expressed in case of Audi Automobiles Vs CCE, Indore reported in 2010(249) ELT.124(Tri-Del.) = 2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and M/s Hyva (India) Pvt. Limited Vs.CCE , Jamshedpur reported in 2014 (6) TMI 201 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Please suggest.

- 0
Replied on Aug 24, 2016
4.

Sh.Panda Ji,

Pl. note the words in your query, "to dispatch the materials from our plant to one of the plants of the principal manufacturer located in different location for use in further manufacturing activities". Job-worked goods stand transferred to one of the units of Principal Manufacturer. Now read definition of 'related person' as Explanation (i) to Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, inserted w.e.f. 28.5.12. vide Section 133 of the Finance Act, 2012 (23 of 2012). It is captive consumption. Penetrate into the issue in view of the changed statutory scenario.

Otherwise also, if there is a conflict between two judgments on the same issue for the same period you are to go by the law. Better to seek advice of your Range Officer to avoid any complication in future. I have expressed my view and I stick to that. You are highly qualified and understand very well. I do not want to comment on the judgment of any court.

- 0
Replied on Aug 27, 2016
5.

Sir, Sri Kasturi Sir, the transfer of material from Job worker to one of the factory of principal manufacturer amounts to captive consumption. I agree with you Sir. Thanks

- 0
Replied on Sep 1, 2016
6.

Thanks all for valuable advice

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Recent Issues