https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53817 The Tribunal held that the assessable value of goods manufactured by job workers should not include the value of a brand name if the job worker did not pay any consideration for it. The Tribunal emphasized that the brand name's value belongs to the owner, not the job worker who merely affixes it. As the job worker did not pay for the brand name, it was deemed improper to include its value in the assessable value. The Commissioner's decision to exclude the brand name value was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This case clarifies the importance of considering actual consideration paid in determining assessable value to avoid unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:57:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53817 The Tribunal held that the assessable value of goods manufactured by job workers should not include the value of a brand name if the job worker did not pay any consideration for it. The Tribunal emphasized that the brand name's value belongs to the owner, not the job worker who merely affixes it. As the job worker did not pay for the brand name, it was deemed improper to include its value in the assessable value. The Commissioner's decision to exclude the brand name value was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This case clarifies the importance of considering actual consideration paid in determining assessable value to avoid unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53817