TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent. The respondents were paying excise duty on the manufactured products as per provisions in Notification 36/2001-CE (NT) dated 26/06/2001. 2. KODAC furnished a cost construction certificate w.e.f 19-09-2000 showing an assessable value of Rs. 5.69 per linear meter of the film after deducting a loss of 0.27 per liner meter toward loss incurred by M/s KODAC and respondent was paying duty based on assessable value of Rs. 5.69 per meter. 3. Revenue was of the view that excise duty should be paid on the cost of manufacture of the film by respondent and not based on the selling price of KODAC which involves a loss of Rs. 0.27 per linear meter. Based on such reasoning a show cause notice was issued for the period Jul 01 to Nov 01. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as grey-cloth, the court observed as under: The price at which he is selling the goods must be the value of the grey-cloth or fabric plus the value of the job work done plus the manufacturing profit and the manufacturing expenses but not any other subsequent profit or expenses. It is necessary to include the processor's expenses, costs and charges plus profit, but it is not necessary to include the traders profits who gets the fabrics processed, because those would be post-manufacturing profits. 5. The Ld. A. R. for Revenue argues that the notification of CENTRAL EXCISE VALUATION (DETERMINATION OF PRICE OF EXCISABLE GOODS) RULES, 2000 did not change the situation in any way because the Rules did not make any special provisions with r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Tribunal in Chemdye Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE , Chennai in appeal No.E/465/2002 vide Final Order number 817/2003 dated 17-10-2003. 9. Further the advocates drew our attention to the fact that a new Rule 10A has been introduced in CENTRAL EXCISE VALUATION (DETERMINATION OF PRICE OF EXCISABLE GOODS) RULES, 2000w.e.f01-04-2007 under which assessable value in the hands of a job-worker is the price at which principal manufacturer sells goods to independent buyers. Now that the principle is recognized clearly in the rules, there is no reason to deny it for a period where there was no clarity in the rules about the principle to be followed. Further he argues that the fact that KODAC was making a loss during the relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his behalf under sub rule (3) of rule 4, to furnish information including the retail sale price at which such goods are sold in order to enable determination of tariff value of such goods under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or any notification issued thereunder. Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, retail sale price means the maximum price at which the excisable goods may be sold in packaged form to the ultimate consumer and includes all taxes, local or otherwise, freight, transport charges, commission payable to dealers, and all charges towards advertisement, delivery, packing, forwarding and the like, as the case may be, and the price is the sole consideration for such sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods estimated to be cleared in the current financial year. 7. Heading No. or sub-heading No. of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) under which the goods are classifiable. 8. (a) Reference to the heading/sub-heading of the said Schedule Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the case may be (under which the goods are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon). (b) Ground of exemption under the said heading/sub-heading or the said notification 9. Process of manufacture. (SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT) 11. It is seen from the notification that there is nothing in the notification which speaks of the method of determining value of goods in the hands of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ands of the job-worker. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chemdye Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd distinguishes the decision in the case of Ujagar prints by stating that in those cases the tradersprices were not known. Such statement is not supported by the facts of the case and in fact the whole dispute in the matter of levying duty was whether the principal manufacturers selling price should be adopted for collecting duty when goods are manufactured by the job-worker. Further the Apex Court in the case of Fiat India Ltd (Supra) did not find it proper to give deduction from cost of manufacture incurred by the actual who incurs cost of material and does the manufacturing activity by himself. So allowing deduction towards loss of th....