AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles i.e. Jeep and motor vehicle's parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants received a supply order in the present case from various Police departments of different States for supply of Bullet Proof Jeep. The appellants cleared base vehicle on payment of appropriate duty to the job-worker where the process of bullet-proofing was undertaken. From there the Bullet Proof Jeep was cleared to the Police department. The Revenue is demanding duty after adding the bullet-proofing charges to the assessable value of the Jeep on the ground that the order received for Bullet Proof Jeep and the appellants supplied the same. The appellants r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made. 5. We find that the Tribunal in the appellants' own case where the Bullet Proof Jeep was supplied to J&K Police and the process of bullet proofing was undertaken by the job-worker, the Tribunal after relying upon the Board's Circular No. 139/08/2000-CX, dated 4-1-2001 whereby the Revenue obtained the opinion of the Law Ministry in respect of the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth Tubes Ltd. (supra) and it has been clarified that the judgment of Siddharth Tubes Ltd. does not enable the department to charge duty on value addition outside the factory of clearance on account of certain processes not amounting to manufacture of manufactured goods in a separate/other unit of the same group or by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration emerges from the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act which requires determination of value at the place of removal. Naturally, place of removal has to be one place. What follows from the provisions relating to registration is that each factory or premises of a manufacturer is required to be registered except those who are covered by exemption. 6. In terms of the legal provisions discussed above, it is quite clear that goods have to be assessed at the place of removal and if the value cannot be determined under main provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, rules for valuation have to be resorted. 7. A hypothetical example makes the position clear. Let us take an assessee who has 4 divisions in different parts of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard has clarified as under :- In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Siddharth Tubes Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)] and in J.G. case [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] Ministry of Law was requested to advise as regards to duty liability on value addition where the duty paid goods are cleared to other units for carrying further processes not amounting to manufacture and the other unit belongs to same group or is that of the job workers who merely processes the goods without owning them and collects job charges and return or cleared the goods on behalf of the supplier of the goods. The Law Ministry has advised that the judgment of the Siddharth Tubes Ltd. does not enable the department to charge duty on value addition outs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame was disallowed by the Tribunal and it was observed as under :- "In the case of removal of goods from the depot the time of removal shall be the time at which such goods were cleared from the factory as per definition of 'time of removal' provided by sub-clause(b)(a) to clause (iv) of Section 4 of the Act". The same view had also been taken by the Western Bench of the Tribunal in Sarita Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai IV - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 394 (Tribunal) = 1999 (34) RLT 573 (CEGAT)". 18. It is seen from the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal that the goods should be assessed in the condition in which the same are cleared from the factory and the value addition on account of the processing carried out by the job worker....