AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er referred to as 'GSK') manufacturing malted food preparations namely "Boost" on job work basis for M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The appellants receive various raw materials like Boost intermediates from GSK. The appellants use these raw materials for the manufacture of finished goods on job work basis for GSK. At the time of clearance of finished goods, the appellants pay excise duty based on the assessable value worked out on the basis of valuation principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Biscuits Co. (pvt. Ltd.)-2000 (120) ELT 24 (SC)i.e. on the basis of cost of raw materials supplied by GSK plus job work charges paid by GSK. M/s GSK manufacturers the raw materials at its different factories an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed the details of actual cost of production of raw materials to the department for finalization of their assessments. The cost of production/Cost sheets of the raw materials, duly certified by Cost Accountant at the end of GSK, supplied by GSK to the appellants. On the basis of national value (cost of production+ 10% adopted by M/s GSK for the purpose of payment of duty) at which M/s GSK had cleared the raw materials to the appellants in terms of Rule 8of Valuation Rules, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, vide Final Assessment Order bearing C.No. V(30)PL/KPT/1/99/PT/6627dated 05.10.2005, finally assessed the value of Boost cleared by the appellants to GSK during the relevant period @ Rs. 83.17 per kg. Aggrieved by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner(appeals) vide order-In-Appeal No. 863/CE/Appl/JAL/2008 dated23.12.2008 has arbitrarily proceeded to uphold the determination of value of Boost @ Rs. 83.17 per kg. as finally assessed by the original Adjudicating Authority, on the premise that there were five kinds of raw materials which were being received on provisional price whereas the appellants had submitted cost data in respect of only three raw materials and that cost of production of the impugned goods Boost submitted by the appellants did not appear to be complete and correct. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has correctly determined assessable value of Boost on the basis of cost of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certained and the said value was adopted by the appellant for finalisation of their assessment. In that circumstances, the provision of Rule 8 are not applicable for the valuation of goods cleared by GSK for supplying the raw material to the appellant. 7. In fact, when the actual sale price is available, in that circumstances, the provisions of Rule 8 are not applicable. The same view was taken by the Larger Bench by this Tribunal in the case of ITC ltd. wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "Valuation (Central Excise) - Inter-unit transfer of goods for captive consumption - Stock transfer without any sale - Cost of production of such raw material for determining cost of production of goods manufactured by transferee unit - HELD : Itis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ost of production at the Chennai unit. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that TISCO decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench has not correctly appreciated the issue. We also find that though the above Tribunal's decision was rendered on 22-3-2013, the Mumbai Bench was not sensitized to the Chennai Division Bench' sun reported decision in Eveready Industries vide Final Order No.542/2010, dated 11-5-2010, the subsequent Chennai DB decision in the case of the same assessee dated 19-4-2011 reported in[2011 (274) E.L.T. 564 (Tri.-Chennai). It appears neither Revenue nor the assessee had brought these ruling of Coordinate Benches to the knowledge of the Mumbai Bench. Had these decisions been brought to the knowledge of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow either from the text or intendment of Rule 8. Rule 8 clearly mandates and in the context of those facts that since wire rods are not sold by the Mumbai unit of TISCO but are used for consumption by TISCO (at Borivali) for production or manufacture of other articles, the value [for remittance of excise duty] shall be 110% (115% during the earlier period up to 4-4-2003) of the cost of production of manufacture of wire rods. Neither textually not on legitimate inferences from the context of Rule 8 does it follow that the value (for remittance of excise duty) on wire rods is mandated to be 110% (or 115%, as the case may be) of "value" of production or manufacture of such goods. The loading of the specified percentage for the remittance of ex....