Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2005 (3) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing points and crossings waste/scrap to the extent of 5% arises. The waste/scrap is not returned to the Railways but is sold off by the Appellants. 3. The question for consideration is whether in computing the value of the points and crossings, the value of the scrap has got to be added. This Court has, in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 held that in respect of goods produced on job work basis the assessable value would include cost of material, processing charges and profit of processor. Thus value has to be worked out by taking into account cost of raw material, labour charges and any other profits earned by the processor. 4. It is an admitted position that to manufacture 100 Kgs. of points a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scrap/waste is returned then, their value will not get added. 6. The burden of proving that the price is so depressed would be on the Revenue. But one of the methods of proving it would be through the contract between the parties itself. In this case the contract is on record. The contract provides as follows: - "The prices quoted are based on the free supply of Rails by you at our works, Bharatpur, Western Railway, Rajasthan. The tonnage for Rails will be 5% more than the net requirement of Rails required for different items of Switches, 5% being the manufacturing wastage." …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision of CEGAT in the case of Jay Engineering Works Limited v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Hyderabad reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 492 (Tribunal) had been brought to its attention. In our view, CEGAT has gone completely wrong in Hindustan Engineering & Industries Limited's case (supra). It must be remembered that the element of raw material is a separate element from the element of conversion charges. The value of the entire raw material used has to be taken into consideration. The element of profit/conversion charges has to be added to the element of value of raw material used. The element of job work charges being separate element from the value of raw material, If it is shown that the job work charges/conversion changes get reduced then the....