TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the job work undertaken, actual manufacturing takes place at the end of the Appellant. Such manufactured goods are being cleared by the Appellant to various parties specified by the principal manufacturer. Such clearances are made to those parties based on the price decided between the principal manufacturer and the ultimate buyer and given to the Appellant. Based on such price, the Appellant is paying Excise duty on the same. As per the contract with SBSPL, the Appellant gets consideration as per the agreed terms and also consideration in terms of the scrap generated at his end. 2. On 30.09.2010, SCN was issued to the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant was paying the Excise duty on the Assessable Value which is undervalued. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue arbitrarily and gone on to cost construction method directly, without discarding the transaction value with proper reason. He further submits that the price was finalized by the principal manufacturer and this fact is acknowledged by the Department in the SCN and OIO. However, since he is an important person in the entire proceedings, the SCN should have also been issued to the principal manufacturer so as to ascertain the procedure by which he was fixing price with the ultimate buyers. In the entire proceedings, it is very clear that the Appellant had no role in fixing up the price to the ultimate buyers by the principal manufacturer. Thus, by not making the principal manufacturer as one of the co-noticees, the present proceedings are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this, one more letter was submitted by the Appellant on 25.05.2009 about the method being followed by them towards their clearances. These factual details prove that there was no suppression on the part of the Appellant about the transactions being carried out by them for SBSPL. He also draws our attention to the relied upon documents in the SCN wherein it is admitted that job worker agreement dt.17.08.2005, the letters of the Appellant on 05.11.2008 & 18.03.2009 and ER1 Returns are relied upon documents. Therefore, the SCN issued on 30.09.2010 by invoking the extended period provisions in respect of the clearances made during the period September, 2005 to July, 2006 is fully time barred. 6. Learned AR submits that the Appellant has faile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argument that this is an additional consideration is wholly erroneous. The consideration is required to flow from the buyer and not from any other third party. Therefore, we take the view that the entire proceedings have been taken up on a wrong notion that the Appellant is barred from relying upon transaction value for their clearances. On this count itself, the confirmed demand is required to be set aside. We do so. 9. Secondly, without any dispute, the price is fixed by the principal manufacturer for sale to the ultimate buyers. In such case, the evidence and submissions of the principal manufacturer would be very crucial to ascertain as to how the price was fixed by them. Therefore, they should necessarily have been made a part of the....