TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n order. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Blow Moulded HDPE plastic bottles on job work basis on behalf of M/s. Marico Ltd. and availed the SSI exemption under Notification No.8./2003. M/s.Marico supplied HDPE granules for manufacture of bottles by appellants. M/s. Marico Ltd. used the said bottles for filling coconut oil for clearing their products. Since the appellants were a job worker, the assessable value of the goods manufactured by them was computed on the basis of formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd. The department was of the view that the price has to be determined upto 1.4.2007 applying Rule 8 and thereafter under Rule 10A(iii) r/w Rule 4 / Rule 8 of Central Excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sistent with the principles and general provisions of the Valuation Rules and section 4(1)of Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of this, the value has to be determined on the principles laid down in Ujagar Prints case. The Board in Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 has clarified that Rule 8 applies only when the goods are not sold by assessee but are used for own consumption or on his behalf. In the instant case, goods are sold to M/s. Marico by the appellant who consume the same for filling the coconut oil. M/s. Marico Ltd. supplies the necessary raw materials to appellant. The HDPE bottles manufactured by appellants are cleared on cost plus conversion basis as per cost certificate given by M/s.Marico. the bottles are manufactured ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of appellant. The very same issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (supra) relied by the appellant. The Tribunal in the said case considered the Board circular F.No. 6/15/2009 dated 31.3.2010. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced for ready reference:- "6. The undisputed fact in these cases is the appellant herein is a job worker manufacturing LABSA for 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 provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of said goods from the factory of job-worker; (iii) in a case not covered under clause (i) or (ii), the provisions of foregoing rules, wherever applicable, shall mutatis mutandis apply for determination of the value of the excisable goods : Provided that the cost of transportation, if any, from the premises wherefrom the goods are sold, to the place of delivery shall not be included in the value of excisable goods. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of go....