Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (6) TMI 60 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - Section 4 (1) (a) of Central Excise Act 1944 or Rule 10A of Valuation Rules 2000? - clearances made to M/s. Mira Textiles Industries (I) Ltd. and M/s. Mohan Breweries under the instructions of M/s. Mira - appellant was getting the kraft paper (raw material) under the cover of Central Excise invoices from M/s.Mira and after availing the credit of craft paper the same was being converted into carton boxes (finished products) - job-work or not - Department was of the view that amount received by the appellant was only compensation of the expenditure incurred by them and received by them through the sale invoices raised. HELD THAT - It has to be noted that there is no free supply of raw materials to the appellant by M/s. Mira Textiles and it is actually purchased by raising invoices and paying the value of the raw material along with duty and applicable Sales Tax / VAT. The ownership of the raw material is therefore transferred from M/s. Mira Textiles to the appellant. Such kraft paper is used for manufacture of carton boxes which are finished product and cleared to M/s. Mira Textiles and M/s. Mohan Breweries under the instructions of M/s. Mira Textiles. The department has relied upon a statement of Shri G. Hari Hara Subramanian General Manager of appellant-company to allege that appellant is a job worker. The documentary evidence in the nature of invoices for purchase of raw materials invoices for clearances of finished products indicate that the appellant is an independent manufacturer. Documentary evidence prevails over oral statement which is not put to the test of examination and cross-examination as required under Section 9D. There is no evidence to support the case of the department. It clearly shows that the appellant has purchased raw materials and used them for manufacture of carton boxes as an independent manufacturer. Similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of COROMANDEL PAINTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. VISAKHAPATNAM 2010 (9) TMI 315 - CESTAT BANGALORE where it was held that merely indicating the vendors of the raw materials or by giving advance money for procurement of such materials or installing the equipments giving by the SIPL would not render the appellant as a job worker. T he demand cannot sustain. Impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|