2017 (4) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asing their own raw material and manufacturing the finished products on their own account which were sold directly in the wholesale market on payment of appropriate rate of duty. Since the said finished products were manufactured and cleared on their own account the excise duty was paid on the assessable value determined as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. There was no dispute as regards to the said clearances made during the period under reference. B) Appellants were also carrying out job work of Hot-Rolling on-behalf of M/s. TATA Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., (TISCO) as their Conversion Agents. The appellants received the raw material on stock transfer basis from TISCO and after Hot Rolling / manufacturing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty of equal amount was also imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1994. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original appellant is before us. 2. Shri. Vinay Sejpal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant discharged excise duty on the sale price of M/s. TISCO in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis on behalf of the M/s. TISCO. He further submits that in the show cause notice, the demand was raised due to addition of increase in the cost of inputs, which is of no relevance as excise duty was paid on the transaction value that is the sale price of the M/s. TISCO by the appellant, therefore no further addition can be made in such sale price of M/s. TISCO. 3. Shri. V.K. Agarwal, Ld. Addl. Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....method provided under the Notification No.27/92(NT). In the present case appellant has adopted valuation in terms of Notification No.27/92-CE(NT) i.e. sale price of the goods manufactured on the job work basis at which the goods is sold by the principle manufacturer i.e. M/s. TISCO. In this case the said price is in conformity to Section 4(i)(a) therefore value under Section 4(i)(a) cannot be influenced by any other factor. The proposal of the department to add differential cost of raw material is only permissible if the appellant adopt the valuation as per principle laid down in case of Ujagar Print, which is not the case here. Therefore addition of any amount in the present case differential cost of raw material is not permissible. As per....