ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Three appeals have been filed by the appellant company and its Vice President and Senior Manager. The 4th appeal is by the department. These appeals are against a common order involving the duty liabilities in regard to :-
(1) Inclusion of value of scrap in the assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis. (2) Non-inclusion of die modification charges. (3) Non-inclusion of processing cost on motor vehicle parts. (4) Reversal of Modvat credit availed on inputs taken out of factory.
2. The major demand of Rs. 1,90,70,826/- in respect of the issue at (1) above. The appellant Company manufactures motor vehicle parts on job work basis out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra. The question that has been raised concerns as to whether the assessable value of the motor vehicle parts should include the raw-material cost plus job charges and in addition, the value/realised by the appellant company from sale of scrap arising out of such job work. The learned DR cites the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad – 1997 (93) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.) to support the department’s claim that the sale proceeds of scrap should be added to the assessable value. The learned Counsel states that in the case of Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I – 2002 (144) E.L.T. 418 (Tri. – Kolkata), the Bench considered the ratio of Jay Engineering (Supra) specifically but took a different view deciding that sale proceeds of scrap in a similar situation was not includible in the assessable value. We are, of the opinion that ratio of the decision in the case of Hindustan Engineering (supra) is correctly applicable in the instant case. We note that for convenience, the scrap is being sold from the job worker’s premises on payment of applicable duty instead of returning the same back to the raw material supplier. In case, the scrap was to be returned to the supplier of raw materials, no doubt the job charges would have increased but then the raw-material cost would have to be re-worked reducing the same to the extent of the value of the returned scrap. In our view, the assessable value of the motor vehicle parts would remain the same irrespective of whether the scrap arising in the process of manufacture is sold on payment of duty from the job worker’s premises or returned to the raw-material suppliers. In either case, the value of the scrap cannot be added to the value of the motor vehicle parts as it forms no part of it. Separate duty is in any case being paid on the value of scrap at the rate applicable to such scrap. In view of our findings above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order confirming the duty demand including the value of scrap in the assessable value of motor vehicle parts is not sustainable nor also the penalties imposed on the appellant unit and its officials on this count.
3. In respect of the other three issues, the learned Counsel states that
the amounts are small and have been promptly paid on being pointed out by the
department. As such, he is not pressing the appeals filed in respect of these is
sues. The department has filed an appeal in respect of these issues on the ground
that the Commissioner should have imposed penalty equal to the duties deter
mined. Considering the fact that the duty amounts relating to these 3 issues were
promptly paid and the discrepancies were of routine nature, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner was justified in not imposing any penalty in respect of
these 3 issues.
4. The appeals of the appellant unit and its officials are partly allowed by setting aside the duty demand and penalty in relation to inclusion of value of scrap in the assessable value of motor vehicle parts. The department’s appeal is rejected.