TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Act, 1985. The appellant cleared the said goods to M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd (in short "HSCIL"), out of the raw materials i.e. mid components (known as "child arts") supplied free of cost (FOC) by HSCIL for welding as well as using their in-house materials into finished goods. 2. Excise duty was paid by the appellant, during the period in question, on the assessable value by including the cost of FOC material supplied, amortized cost of tools supplied by HSCIL and conversion/job charges including profit at the time of clearance of their finished goods to HSCIL. 3. The valuation adopted by the appellant for payment of excise duty was objected to by the audit team which led to issuance of SCN dated 30.04.2014, wherein proposal was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ujagar Print (supra). Thus, both Rule 8 & 10A (iii) were not applicable in the present case. He also relied on several case laws including the following: (i) Shivani Detergent Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Indore. Final Order No. A/54617/2016-EX(DB) dated 28.10.2016. (ii) Rolastar Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Daman, 2012 (276) ELT 87 (Tri.Ahmd.) affirmed by Supreme Court Commissioner Vs Rolastar Pvt Ltd., 2013 (298) ELT A186 (SC). (iii) Advance Surfactants India Ltd Vs CCE, Mangalore, 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. The ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of job work and hence, Rule 10A will be applicable. As per sub-rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. HUL. It is also undisputed that HUL gives LAB and the appellant uses other consumables in the manufacture of LABSA. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been valuing the said LABSA cleared from factory premises, based upon the cost of material plus processing charges prior to 1-4-2007 when the provisions of Rule 10A were inserted into the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. It is also undisputed that the said LABSA is returned back to M/s. HUL for further consumption in their factory premises for manufacturing of soaps and detergents. It is nobody‟s case that LABSA consumed by HUL is on behalf of the appellant herein. 8. At this juncture, we find that a clarification which has been issued by the Ministry of Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary (CX. I) Copy to :-All Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Central Excise & Customs. 8.1 It can be seen that the clarification issued by the C.B.E.C. seems to be untenable in view of the foregoing reasons. The views expressed in the Circular are inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 8. The provisions of Rule 8 can be brought into play only if there is consumption of the goods by himself or on behalf of an assessee. Since the said clarification is against the mandate of the said Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Prices of Excisable Goods) Rules, the said clarification is untenable and has to be held as such. 9. We find that our above view has been confirmed by the bench in the Tara Industries Ltd. cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 619/10/2002-CX., dated 19-2-2002. Paras 2 and 3 of the Circular read as under : "2. The matter has been examined by the Board. It is observed that the system of getting goods manufactured on job work basis is not new. Under the provisions of the earlier Section 4 and the Rules made thereunder the matter has been finally decided by the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd. [1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.)] and the case of Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.)]. It was clearly held that in respect of goods manufactured on job work basis, assessable value would be the job charges (including the profit of the job worker if not already included in the job charges) pl....