2005 (2) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The issue relates to valuation of excisable goods in the hands of a job worker. Normally one would have thought that the issue is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and Pawan Biscuits - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.). But no. 3. M/s. CSFL Pharma and M/s. Wallace Pharma are the principa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed under Section 11AC and interest demanded under Section 11AB. The period in dispute is April 2000 to October 2001. Concept of transaction value for the purpose of assessment was introduced w.e.f. 1-7-2000. The Department holds that the value of the impugned good is determinable under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 7 of Valuation Rules. 4. Rule 7 of valuation Rules read with "where the excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ker indicating the price at which the goods would be sold by him. in the present case no such declaration is given as admitted by the appellant. The Commissioner thereupon holds that the price at which goods are sold by the principal manufacturers should be the basis for determining of the value and since the appellant has not disclosed such price (the price at which the principals sold their good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me. However if the job worker is not considered as a manufacturer for any reason the situation would be different. The department does not hold that the appellant is not a manufacturer. The fact that differential duty is demanded from him is a pointer in this direction. 7. The Commissioners' reliance on Rule 7 of Valuation Rules is also faulty. He seemed to be contending that since the goods ar....