Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 162 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - job-work - it appeared to Revenue that the transaction is not at arms length and accordingly, instead of valuation under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the valuation is to be done under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 10 A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Whether the valuation of wall putty manufactured and cleared by the appellant, M/s. Miraj Drymix Pvt. Ltd., has been rightly done for the purpose of levy of duty? - whether the extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked? - Penalty u/r 26 of CER. Held that:- Under the provisions of Rule 10A with Explanation, the condition precedent, i.e supply of raw material by the principal to the other manufacturer, job worker is not satisfied in the facts of the present case - the show cause notice is misconceived and the provisions of Rule 10 A of the Valuation Rules 2000 do not attract in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts herein are squarely covered by the Precedential rulings of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs Innocorp Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 382 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that the respondents in these appeals were not manufacturing the subject goods as job workers “on behalf of” TUPPERWARE. Needless to say, therefore, that Rule 10A was not applicable to the assessment of the subject goods Demand set aside - penalties also not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|