COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Vs. DIVYA CASES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these four appeals, common question of law and facts are involved and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. As the Orders are common, we take up all the four appeals for passing a common order. In respect of E/241/2001 the findings given by the Commissioner is extracted herein below : -

(2.) LD . DR pointed out that the appellants had cleared the goods to the job worker for Ion/ Gold plating without following the procedure of Rule 57F(4) while arriving at the assessable value. The contention that ultimately the Timex Watches were adding the assessable value to their assessable value will not make any consequence. He submitted that the process of gold plating is also a process of manufacture and hence its value is required to be added. The Counsel also relied on the Circular No. 139/8/2000 -CX. 4, issued by the Board wherein they have referred to the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)] and J.G. Glass [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)] and held that when goods are cleared for certain processes outside the factory then they are not required to be added and the said processes does not amount to manufacture and he argued that the judgment given by the lower authorities is correct and proper. They also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (149) E.L.T. 1000] on the same point.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submission we notice that the Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the process of Ion/Gold plating is not a process of manufacture as the watch cases can be marketed even without this plating. The Commissioner has also noted that the primary manufacturer i.e., Timex Watches has produced a certificate to the effect that while arriving at the assessable value of the watches cleared by them, they have taken into consideration all input costs including gold plating charges. Therefore, he has noted that there has been no revenue loss to the Company. We are of the considered opinion that the this finding is legal and proper in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of J.G. Glass and Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. (supra). This Bench also has held in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) that cost of slitting of paper reels into reams incurred by person other than assessee, would not be includible in assessable value of reams, even if such cost is incurred in their depot. In view of these citations, we do not find any merit in the appeals. Accordingly, appeals are rejected.