TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Biradar, Advocate ORDER Per: Raju 1. M/s.Swastik Dyeing & Bleaching Factory are processors of fabrics. Various exporters supply fabrics to M/s.Swastik Dyeing & Bleaching Factory, who processes the fabrics and hand it back to exporters. In this bunch of cases, all the exporters were receiving the processed fabrics within the factory of processors and undertaking certain activities like folding and packing etc. before exporting the same from the premises of the processors under ARE-1 forms. Revenue issued notices to the processors and various exporters claiming that they have not followed the principles of valuation laid down in Ujagar Prints judgement. It was alleged that they have valued the goods in such a manner, so as to inflat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the processed goods were returned to the suppliers of the raw materials. In those cases the buyers had not done any processes in job workers premises. In this case the goods were directly cleared from the job workers premises for export and no processes were done by exporters in job-workers premises. It was therefore, necessary to clear the goods at export price which the processors has done. On this ground, she has differentiated the facts from those of Ujagar Prints. Another arguments forwarded by the Revenue is that the value of the process was done by the exporter within the processors premises should not be included in the value of export products. In this regard the respondents relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eared from the factory of the appellants and were further processed by M/s. AMR Associates before these were finally sold to the customers, the normal price of these goods cannot be determined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the value has to be determined under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Valuation Rules, 1975. The same has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2008 (221) ELT 831 (SC). Furthermore, in the case of CCE, Pune-II Vs. Jubilee Fabrics Ltd. 2007 (220) ELT 79 (Tri-Mumbai) and identical dispute has been decided by this Tribunal. In the said order, this Tribunal has observed as under: 3. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal of the respondents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....premises of the manufacturer. In view of the same, it is clear that the goods have to be assessed in the form the goods leave the factory premises, notwithstanding the fact that some of the processes were done by the buyer at his own expense. In such a situation, the assessable value of the goods while leaving the factory gate will naturally include the cost of all the processes undertaken for making the goods marketable, even if some cost has been incurred by the buyer. The appellants have also referred to CBEC's Circular 139/8/2000-CX.4 dated 3-1-2001, wherein the Board has clarified that cost on account of process not amounting to manufacture, if undertaken inside the same factory premises are to form part of the cost of the final produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd., will not be applicable to this case. The appellants have therefore, correctly availed the deemed credit facility. In view of the above, the demand, interest and penalty do not survive and accordingly are set aside. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion that the Revenue has accepted the amount of the duty, on the value of the goods, which included the value of all the activities which were done by an exporter in the factory premises of the respondent. If that be so, than the value on which the excise duty paid is to be taken into consideration for arriving at the amount of the deeme....