Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Woollen Mills Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Modern Woollen Mills Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 11, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19995

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/19995
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Sreedharan, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Dec 11, 2000
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Modern Woollen Mills Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(165)ELT108TriDel

Excerpt

1. the dispute is about valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis by the respondent. yarn is manufactured by the respondent both on its own and on job work basis. the appeal of the revenue contends that since the yarn manufactured on job work basis is of the same quality and count as the yarn manufactured by the respondent on his own, the price of the latter should be taken as the assessable value of the former. the commissioner (appeals) had held against the revenue relying on the decision of the tribunal in the case of kandivali metal works v.cce [1997 (90) e.l.t. 187]. appeal against this order of the tribunal had been dismissed by the supreme court reported in 1998 (97) e.l.t.a222 (s.c.).2. when the matter came up for hearing today none represented the respondent, despite notice. accordingly, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal of the revenue after hearing learned departmental representative. he explained that the yarn in the present case manufactured on job work basis were comparable with the yarn manufactured by the respondent on his own. accordingly, the price of one could be adopted for the assessment of the other. he also relied on the decision of the tribunal in the case of india carbon ltd. v. cce, shillong [1998 (104) e.l.t. 762 (t)] in support of his contention.learned departmental representative also submitted that the decision of the tribunal in india carbon ltd. had gone before the supreme court in appeal and the apex court has not interfered with the finding on law in that order as reported in [1999 (105) e.l.t. 257 (s.c.)].3. we have perused the records and considered the submissions. the commissioner (appeals) has passed the impugned order following the decision of the tribunal in kandivali metal works case, which had been upheld by the supreme court. rule 6(b)(i) of central excise (valuation) rules, 1975 is applicable in the case of captive use of goods by the manufacturer and not in the case of manufacture on job work basis. it.....

Full Judgment

1. The dispute is about valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis by the respondent. Yarn is manufactured by the respondent both on its own and on job work basis. The appeal of the revenue contends that since the yarn manufactured on job work basis is of the same quality and count as the yarn manufactured by the respondent on his own, the price of the latter should be taken as the assessable value of the former. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held against the Revenue relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kandivali Metal Works v.CCE [1997 (90) E.L.T. 187]. Appeal against this order of the Tribunal had been dismissed by the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T.A222 (S.C.).

2. When the matter came up for hearing today none represented the respondent, despite notice. Accordingly, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue after hearing learned Departmental Representative. He explained that the yarn in the present case manufactured on job work basis were comparable with the yarn manufactured by the respondent on his own. Accordingly, the price of one could be adopted for the assessment of the other. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of India Carbon Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong [1998 (104) E.L.T. 762 (T)] in support of his contention.

Learned Departmental Representative also submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in India Carbon Ltd. had gone before the Supreme Court in appeal and the Apex Court has not interfered with the finding on law in that order as reported in [1999 (105) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)].

3. We have perused the records and considered the submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order following the decision of the Tribunal in Kandivali Metal Works case, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Rule 6(b)(i) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 is applicable in the case of captive use of goods by the manufacturer and not in the case of manufacture on job work basis. It is settled law (Ujagar Prints decision of the Apex Court) that when goods are manufactured on job work basis, their valuation should be carried out for central excise duty by taking in the cost of the material and the job work charges. Accordingly, we find no error in the impugned order. From a perusal of the Supreme Court decision in India Carbon Ltd. case we find that the Apex Court has already remanded the case for a fresh decision after going into evidence. That order therefore cannot be relied upon in support of the proposition that goods manufactured on job work basis can be assessed on the basis of value of comparable goods. Legal conclusion sought to be deduced from the Apex Court's decision in India Carbon Ltd. case that both the goods are to be assessed on the comparable nature of the goods manufactured is not warranted. We do not find any ground to support the submission made by the Learned Departmental Representative. The appeal of the Revenue fails and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Modern Woollen Mills Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Sreedharan, N T C.N.B.