TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were receiving goods from their principal manufacturer namely M/s. Marico Industries and carrying out job work on the goods. The processed goods were sent back to M/s. Marico Industries for use by them in further manufacture. The appellant adopted cost plus job work charges for valuation of goods at the time of clearing the subject goods back to the principal manufacturer. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.6.2011 was issued to the appellant demanding Rs.1,68,387/- along with interest alleging that the appellant should have adopted the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 instead of the cost plus job work charges method adopted by them at the time of clearance. After due proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act". Since none of the Rules 1 to 10 were applicable in their case, the value was required to be determined on the basis of the formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Ujagar Print's case cited supra i.e. on cost of raw material plus conversion cost. The Ld. Counsel submitted that this Tribunal in M/s. Bhavani Enterprises, Shree Mukambikai Polymers, M/s. Smith Enterprises Vs. CCE, Puducherry reported in 2018 (2) TMI 139 - CESTAT, Chennai has decided this very same issue in the case of the appellants relying on the decision of the CESTAT in the case of Advance S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant does not captively consume the goods nor does M/s.Marico consume it 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the excisable goods shall be the normal transaction 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: (ii) in a case not covered under clause (i) or (il), 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....