A job work transaction triggers Excise Duty liability if the process involves manufacture. The consequent question that arises is how to determine assessable value of the goods involved.
The various provisions that linger in one’s mind are Rule 10 A 0r Rule 8 or Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000.
I take this opportunity to portray my views on this issue
In the above background I would like to like to drive the attention of my esteemed readers to the following situations:
Situation 1: Manufactured goods are cleared for sale from Job worker’s premises or from a place other than Job worker’s premises
Situation 2: Manufactured goods are captively consumed by the supplier of raw material (i.e. principal manufacturer) or any other person on his behalf
Situation 3: Good are manufactured by “Job worker 1(JB 1)” are sent by principal manufacturer (i.e. supplier of raw material) to the “Job worker 2” (on a principal to principal basis) in connection with further manufacture of finished goods
Sending the goods received from JB 1 to JB 2
In this situation there are two possibilities:
(i) Manufactured goods directly sent to “Job worker 2”
(ii) Manufactured goods were first received in premises of raw material supplier (i.e. Principal manufacturer) and sent to “Job worker 2”
Valuation of goods processed/manufactured by “Job worker 1”
Here “Job worker 2” is not an agent of manufacturer i.e. “Job worker 1” and the contract to further manufacture the finished goods is only between the “Job worker 2” & supplier of raw material. Therefore “Job worker 2” does not come within the meaning of ‘any other person on behalf of manufacturer’
Drawing analogy from the above it can be viewed that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules does not apply.
Further the attention of the readers is drawn to the judgment of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in Indian Extrusions Vs CCEx Mumbai (2012-TIOL-553-CESTAT-MUM) in which the Tribunal has reiterated the Supreme Court judgment in Ujagar prints Vs Union India 2002-TIOL-03-SC-CX wherein the apex Court held that “on applying Rule 11 the assessable value has to be determined on the cost of raw materials cost plus job charges collected.”
On applying the ratio of the Apex court to the situation 3 (i) one can safely conclude that the assessable value shall be cost of raw material supplied to “job worker 2” plus job work charges paid to “job worker 2”.
However the assessable value in the situation 3(ii) above is cost of raw material supplied to “job worker 2”, job work charges paid to “job worker 2” and over heads incurred up to premises of supplier of raw material (i.e. principal manufacturer) like transport cost.
Since the place of removal is the premises of principal manufacturer, all costs incurred up to that point should be included in the assessable value.
Moreover, assessable value would be MRP Less abatement if the goods are liable to payment of duty under MRP provisions i.e. section 4A of Central Excise Act 1944.
(Author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org)