TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for further manufacture of the resultant final product namely, compressors. Initially, the appellants were paying Central Excise duty on the laminations by considering the aggregate value of the cost of raw material, adding there with the job-work charges and the job-work profit. Adoption of valuation of goods by the appellants was based on the formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC). Such modus operandi of valuation adopted by the appellants as the job worker was accepted by the department till the period March,2007. However, consequent upon insertion of Rule 10A in the Central Excise Valuation Rules,2000 (w.e.f. 01.04.2007), the department had entertained the view that the valuation provisions contained in the newly inserted sub-clause (iii) of Rule 10A read with Rule 8 ibid should be applicable in the case of the appellant and they were liable to pay Central Excise Duty on 110% of the cost of production of the Laminations. Since, appropriate duty liability was not discharged by the appellant during the period April 2007 to November 2007, the department initiated show cause proceedings, proposing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise - 2008 (228) ELT 43 (Tri.-LB) to support the stand of Revenue that the appellants should be liable to pay Central Excise duty on 110% of the cost of production of Laminations. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. We find that for the prior period (up to March 2007), the department did not dispute the valuation provisions adopted by the appellants, in considering the aggregate cost of raw material (+) job charges, inclusive of job-work profit for the purpose of determination of the assessable value. However, upon inclusion of Rule 10A by Notification No. 9/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 01.03.2007in the Valuation Rules, 2000, the department had changed the stand to conclude that the valuation provisions contained in Rule 10A ibidread with Rule 8 ibid should be applicable for determination of the assessable value and computation of the appropriate duty liability thereon. 6. Different situations are envisaged in Rule 10A ibid, for determination of the value, where the excisable goods are manufactured by a job-worker on behalf of the principal manufacturer. On a conjoint reading of different clauses contained in Rule 10A ibid, it transpires that the said statute provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner (Appeals) has not considered the Tribunal order passed in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (supra), holding that the said order has not been accepted by the department and is the subject matter of dispute pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the same has not attained finality. It is an admitted fact on record that the operation of the above order of the Tribunal has not been stayed or overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this context, the law is well settled that the lower authorities, sub-ordinate to the Tribunal are duty bound to follow the orders passed by such higher judicial forum. 8. Insofar as the provisions regarding filing and hearing of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, Sub-section (1) of Section 35M of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) (for short, referred to as "CPC") relating to appeals to the Supreme Court shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under Section 35L ibid as they apply in the case of appeals from the decrees of a High Court. Order 41 - Rule 5(1) of the CPC deals with the effect of the order of lower authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdy the finality of the decree or order sought to be subjected to exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the Supreme Court. It is only if the application is allowed and leave to appeal granted then the finality of the decree or order under challenge is jeopardised as the pendency of appeal reopens the issue decided and the Supreme Court is then scrutinising the correctness of the decision in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction." 10. In view of the above settled position of law, we do not find any justification in the impugned order insofar as it has held that the ratio of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (supra) cannot be followed for deciding the present appeal. We also find that in the case of Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal by placing reliance in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (supra) has held that the provisions of 10A ibid would be applicable only to the job-worker, who completes the job work and puts the finished goods into the market as directed by principal manufacturer or sends the same to the depot of the principal manufacturer for further sales. It has further been held that the provisions of Rule 8 ....