determination of assessable value for job work transaction

[PRANAB PANDA]

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

• Whether under Rule 10 A (iii) read with Rule 6 or Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000?

[KASTURI SETHI]

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 8ibid in this case.

[MUKUND THAKKAR]

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

[PRANAB PANDA]

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.

[KASTURI SETHI]

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.

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

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

[PRANAB PANDA]

Thanks all for valuable advice

AI Summary

Captive consumption rule determines assessable value for job work transfers, shaping valuation under Central Excise Valuation Rules. When job-worked goods remain the principal manufacturer's property and are transferred to a unit of the principal for further manufacture, the transfer is treated as captive consumption and valuation should be determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000; the post 2012 expanded definition of 'related person' supports this view, although conflicting tribunal authorities exist and practical consultation with the range officer is advised.