ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice-President
1. These issues involve a common issue and are therefore taken up for disposal.
2. The appellants have sought for the decision on merits based on the Larger Bench decision in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. CCE Pune .
3. The learned JDR for the department after perusal of the records has stated that orders which were impugned before the learned lower appellate authority were the assessment orders on the RT-12 returns and the appellants before the learned lower authority had sought for the abatement of modvat credit for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value. He has pleaded that the facts are not clear as to the basis adopted for the assessment in the RT-12 returns as there is mention in the order of the learned lower appellate authority that the assessment had been done based on the invoice value. He has pleaded that the ratio of the decision cited would be only applicable in the circumstance where the cost construction method in terms of Rule 6(b) of Valuation Rules is adopted for the purpose of assessable value. The appellants in their return submissions have not also set out as to basis on which the assessment was originally done. In the written submission they have stated that the issue in the appeal is whether for the purpose of determining the assessable value for the goods produced on job work the duty paid on invoice basis whether modvat taken under Rule 57Q by the job worker should be excluded or not. From the statement of facts, it appears that they are selling identical goods also at the factory gate.
4. The learned JDR for the department has pleaded that the ratio of the larger bench decision would be applicable in case the appellants had paid duty based on the assessable value arrived at by the cost construction method under Rule 6(b) and not otherwise.
5. We have considered the pleas made before us. We observe that the appellant have sought for the benefit in terms of the ratio of the decision of the Larger bench in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. cited supra. The appellants have stated that they were manufacturing the goods on job work basis. Further, it also seen from the records that the assessment have been done based on invoice value in terms of Rule 173C(ii). There is also a mention that the appellants were clearing the identical goods by sale at the factory goods. The position on facts therefore is not clear. The learned Collector while having taken note of the clearance of the goods based on invoice value has gone on to examine the appellant’s plea in principle as to whether modvat element could be abated in terms of Section-4 for arriving at the assessable value. He has not discussed as to whether in fact the assessment in case of the appellants’ goods had been done based on the cost construction method as above or it was based on value of identical goods cleared from the factory and the assessment was done in terms of Rule 173C(ii). The ratio of the larger bench decision would be applicable only in the circumstance where there is no sale at the factory gate of the goods and these after doing the job work, are transferred to the supplier of the raw materials on collection of job work charges and not by way of sale. Since all the facts are not clear from the records, it is not possible to enter any finding on the plea of the appellants. Further, the fact remains that the goods had been manufactured in job work basis. This position is not disputed by the revenue. In this background and in the interest of justice, we feel that the appellants should be given another chance for establishing their claim in the light of ratio of the larger bench decision and in the light of our discussions as above.
6. We are therefore constrained to remand the matter to the original authority for de novo decision and consideration after affording the appellants an opportunity for a personal hearing.
7. The appeals are allowed by remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court).