Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 177 - AT - Central ExciseTime Limitation - clubbing of clearances - mutuality of interest - whether price adopted for the job work should be accepted and not the selling price of M/s. Nestle India Ltd.? - THAT:- The Tribunal, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI VERSUS MAGANLAL NANDLAL & SONS [1999 (5) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has held that when an appeal is filed by the department against only one firm without impleading the other two firms, then the appeal is not maintainable in an issue where clearance of all the three are proposed to be clubbed. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT VERSUS SOMPURA CERAMICS [2000 (11) TMI 208 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI], the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on a similar ground. The Revenue had filed an appeal against a single unit. They were proceeding to club the clearances of more than one unit. The appeal against the other unit had been dismissed as barred by time. Therefore, in that situation also, the other appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. It is also found that the Commissioner's reasoning to drop the Show Cause Notice is correct in law. M/s. Nestle India Ltd. was supplying the raw material. They had given loan for purchase of machinery but it had not influenced the pricing and the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the assessee as an independent job worker. The value of the job worker alone is required to be adopted in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of PAWAN BISCUITS CO. (PVT.) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA [2000 (7) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT] which has followed the earlier judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of UJAGAR PRINTS ETC. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT]. There is no flow back of funds and the assessee herein does not have interest in M/s. Nestle India Ltd.'s profits. There is no mutuality of interest and the relationship was on principal-to-principal basis. In view of this settled position of law, dropping of proceedings by the Commissioner in both these orders is correct, legal and proper. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are rejected.
|