1996 (1) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anded over to M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd., who in turn sell the same as a M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd., product. Respondent filed price list in proforma VII for this product on 4.12.1991. There was a provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The value declared in the price list consisted of the cost of raw materials, the processing charges manufacturing expenses and profit. This value was less than the price at which M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd., sell in the wholesale market. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to show cause why assessable value should not be fixed on the basis of the price charged by M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd. The notice was rebutted by the respondent. However, the Assi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1988 (19) ECR 578 (SC) : ECR C 1281 SC : 1988 (38) ELT 535 was given by the Supreme Court in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by various parties including Ujagar Prints as well as the present respondent. The facts of some of the cases are set out therein. It is seen that raw materials were supplied to the processors, who after processing, handed over the processed fabrics to those from whom raw materials were received. On these facts, the Supreme Court had to consider how for the processor to pay excise duty (since the activity of processing in the case was activity of manufacture), the processed goods had to be valued. The goods belonged to the trader or the supplier and, therefore, the processor had n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fit and expenses on processing and would not take in anything more. The matter was further clarified in paragraph 2 of the order by indicating that if the trader who entrusted the fabric to the processor would give a declaration to the processor as to the price at which he would be selling the goods in the market, that would be taken as the assessable value provided that the declaration would include only the price or deemed price at which the fabric would leave the processor's factory plus the processor's profit. This was reiterated in the last sentence of paragraph 2. 3. In these circumstances, in the given fact situation, there is no escape from the conclusion that the clarificatory order reported in 1989 (21) ECR 1 (SC) : ECR C....