M/S. Technocraft Industries (India) ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in- Original No. 40/BR-40/Th I/2010 dtd. 17/8/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities?

=======================================================

M/s. Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd. :

Appellants

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. T.C. Nair, Advocate with Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advcoate for the Appellant Shri. Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 28/4/2015 Date of decision 28/4/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.K. Jain

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturing the goods on behalf of principal manufacturer. The Principal manufacturer supplied black pipes free of cost to the appellant after availing Cenvat credit on such black pipes. Appellant uses such black pipes in the manufacturing process (i.e. Galvanization) and paid duty on his final product which in turn is used by the principal manufacturer in further manufacture. The dispute is relating to valuation of the final product by the appellant. Revenue is of the view that the value of galvanized and black pipes should be added for determination of assessable value of the final product. While appellant is of the view that value of the galvanized and black pipes need not be added.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that issue is decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar[2005(183)E.L.T. 239(S.C.)]. Ld. Counsel further submits that the said judgment has been recently followed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune[2015-TIOL-31-SC-CX]

3. Learned Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that value is required to be computed in terms of Honble Supreme Courts judgment in Ujagar Prints and others Vs Union Of India [2002-TIOL-01-SC-CX].

4. We have considered rival submissions.

5. We find that the facts of the present case are exactly similar to the case covered by International Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar(supra). In view of the said position and respectfully following the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Ltd, we allow the appeal.

(Operative part pronounced in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.K. Jain Member (Technical)

sk

2