2018 (10) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Pvt. Ltd.) (Hereinafter referred to as principal manufacture). The appellants at the time of clearance of job worked goods paid the duty on cost construction method on the principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints vs UOI 1989 (39) ELT 493 i.e. Raw Material cost plus job charges. The goods were cleared to the principal and the same were sold by the principal after carrying out certain process such as affixing the brand name, polishing, putting up screws and such necessary exercise with manufactured goods and activity of packing than the goods were sold in open market. The department contended that since the goods manufactured on job work basis by the respondents were sold by the principal, the valuation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals) has seriously erred in holding that the goods cleared by the job worker and sold by the principal manufacturer are different. He submits that the very same goods cleared from the job worker's premises were sold from the premises of the principal, therefore, the valuation clearly under Rule 10A(ii) shall apply. Even though certain process has claimed by the respondent i.e. affixing the brand name, polishing, putting up screws etc. was carried out but by such process, the nature of the goods cleared from the factory of the job worker does not change, therefore, it is the very same goods cleared from the job workers' premises which were sold from the principal's premises. He submits that the Commissioner heavily relied upon the decisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bangalore 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri.Bang.) CCE, Cochin Vs. Kitex Ltd, 2016 (338) ELT 174 (SC) 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. In the present case neat question of law involved is that whether the goods manufactured by job worker and cleared to the principal which subsequently sold by the principal after certain activity would be valued in terms if Rule 10A (ii) or otherwise. From the impugned order, we find that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has heavily relied upon the decision in the case of Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (Supra). Ongoing through these judgments, we find that firstly in all these judgments, the period involved is pri....