Pradeep Reddy
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
- Rule 10 A is applicable when the manufactured goods are sold by the principal manufacturer either from the premises of job worker or from a place other than job worker’s premises.
- Rule 8 is applicable when the manufactured goods are captively consumed by the manufacturer or any other person on his behalf.
- If Rule 10 A or Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules does not apply then recourse can be made to Rule 11. Rule 11 can be used only if the valuation cannot be made by using any of the Central Excise valuation Rules 2000. Rule 11 prescribes that valuation shall be made by using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the Valuation Rules read with subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
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
- The above situation squarely falls within the ambit of Rule 10 A of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 and there shall be no room for divergent interpretations.
Situation 2: Manufactured goods are captively consumed by the supplier of raw material (i.e. principal manufacturer) or any other person on his behalf
- Rule 1o A does not apply since the manufactured goods are not cleared for sale either from job worker premises or from any other place
- Hence the above situation squarely falls within the ambit of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000
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”
- Rule 10 A does not apply since the manufactured goods were sold neither from “job worker 1” premises nor from any other place
- Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules does not apply as the manufacturer in this case is “job worker 1” not the supplier of raw material
- However one may take a view that “Job worker 2 ” in the present case would come within the meaning of the word “any other person on behalf of manufacturer” as given under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
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 pradeepreddy674@gmail.com)
AS PER EXCISE RULES THE PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURER JOB WORKER IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING UNDER NOTIFICATION 8/2003 OVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE JOB WORKER WHERE IS THIS RULE BEING APPLIED IN PRACTICE NO WHERE IN DELHI MP,HYDERABAD OR ANY OTHER STATE IN INDIA & EXCISE DEPARTMENT OR OFFICERS WHO WANT PROMOTION ARE RAIDING UNITS OF JOB WORKERS & FOR TEIR PERSOANL GRUDGES PUTTING THE JOBWORKERS UNDER TROUBLE BY SENDING THEM NOTICES JUST BECAUSE OF THE FAULT OF PRINCIPAL MANUFACTURES ARE SSI CLAIMING SSI EXEMPTION RUINING THE LIVELIHOOD OF THESE JOB WORKERS SHAME ON THESE OFFICERS WHO FOR THEIR SELFISH MOTIVES ARE MAKING JOBWORKERS A SCAPREGOAT