(1.) AFTER appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of malt extracts and food preparations. In addition, they are also manufacturing "Boost" on job work basis for M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GSK). For the purpose of manufacturing of Boost, the appellants were receiving raw -materials from M/s. GSK. The assessable value of the Boost being manufactured by them was based on the value of the raw -materials supplied by M/s. GSK, manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, as per Ujagar Print formula laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(2.) IT is seen that M/s. GSK was adopting the cost of the raw -materials based on Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and were discharging their duty liability accordingly. The cost of the production of raw -material by M/s. GSK was not known at the time of their removal, and their assessments were kept provisional were being finalised at the end of each financial year. In as much as the cost of the raw -materials, being supplied by M/s. GSK was provisionally assessed and as the assessable value of the appellants' product was dependent upon the cost of raw -materials, the assessments were kept provisional at appellants' end also. After finalisation of the cost of production of the raw -materials at the end of M/s. GSK, the appellants provisionally assessed clearances for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 were finalised by their Central Excise authorities on 30 -3 -2002, 31 -3 -2002 and 9 -6 -2003 respectively. The said finalisation of the assessment was done after examining the entire aspects including the certificates issued by the Cost Accountant and by way of passing proper assessment finalisation orders.
(3.) THE impugned order stands assailed on the point of limitation, by submitting that the assessments were finalised in the year 2002 -03 itself and the demand having been raised in the year 2005 is fully barred by limitation.