TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od April, 2000 to July, 2004. It was alleged that, the appellants had not properly worked out the assessable value while paying duty on the said goods as they had not included the notional profit @ 10/15% of the manufacturing cost in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. 3. The appellant contested the show-cause notice on the following grounds:- 3.1 Vide declaration dated 02.05.2000, on behalf of HLL, value was declared at Rs. 51,000/- P.M.T. which included profit margin. Thus allegation or basis of issuing show-cause notice does not exist. 3.2 Value of own goods, in case of stock transfer was declared at Rs. 56,000/- P.M.T. 3.3 Appellant received details of va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value reduced on both counts viz. (i) Reduction in raw material cost of HLL and (ii) Reduction in rate of processing charges. 3.10 The appellant have declared the assessable value on the basis of raw material cost (as advised by HLL) plus processing charges plus profit margin of 10%/15% as applicable. 3.11 There is no incentive to undervalue. HLL have to pay the excise duty and is entitled to take CENVAT credit of the same. 3.12 On the basis of cost certificate(s) furnished by HLL (as certified by their Chartered Accountant), suo motu payment of differential duty and interest was made under intimation to department. 3.13 The appellant have a good track record of compliance and payment of tax/duty. 4. That the Additional Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant have not added the profit margin, under valuation is established and extended period rightly invoked. Thus the Order-in-Original was upheld. 6. The appellants in their grounds of appeal submitted that, in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints reported at 1989 (39) ELT 93 (SC) and Pawan Biscuits Co. reported at 2000 (120) ELT 24 (SC), the value was correctly worked out and duty was accordingly paid thereon. The comparable prices could not be applicable in the present case as M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. were procuring requisite raw materials in bulk quantity at cheaper rates and during the period the processing charges were reduced. They pointed out that the assessable value was worked out by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of comparable price, hence the impugned order is vitiated and illegal. Reliance is also placed on the Ruling of Tribunal in the case of Kandivali Metal Works 1997 (90) ELT 187 upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1998 (97) ELT A-222, wherein if it held that where a job worker also manufacturers goods on his own, comparative sales price of own goods cannot be made applicable for valuation. They prayed to set aside the impugned order. As there was no allegation of mis-statement or fraud etc. with intent to evade duty, the demand was hit by limitation. They prayed to set aside the impugned order(s). 7. The ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.), reiterates the findings of the courts below. 8. We have perused the case records carefully....