TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was not justified in directing the assessee to make predeposit in the present case by relying upon its earlier order - Decided in favor of the assessee - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.150 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2012 - J.P. Devadhar A.R. Joshi, JJ. Mr.V Shridharan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prakash Shah Mr.Jas Sanghavi i by PDS Legal for the appellant. Mr.A.S. Rao with Mr.J.B. Mishra for the respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant assessee to make predeposit of Rs.50,00,000/for entertaining the appeal filed by the assessee against the orderinoriginal dated 18th February 2010 is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007, Rule 10A has been inserted to the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 ( Valuation Rules for short). 5. Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules reads thus : RULE 10A. Where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a jobworker, on behalf of a person (hereinafter referred to as principal manufacturer), then, ( i) in a case where the goods are sold by the principal manufacturer for delivery at the time of removal of goods from the factory of jobworker, where the principal manufacturer and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sold consideration for the sale, the value of the excisable goods shall be the transaction value of the said goods sold by the principal ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on behalf of the principle manufacturer and the said goods are sold by the principle manufacturer at the time of removal of goods from the factory gate of the jobworker, then, the value of the excisable goods shall be the transaction value of the goods sold by the principle manufacturer. By applying the aforesaid rule, the Excise Authorities sought to recover the differential duty from the assessee in respect of the goods already cleared on payment of duty. The assessee contended that Rule 10A is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. By an adjudication order dated 18th February 2010, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the duty demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and, hence, the Tribunal was justified in directing the assessee to make predeposit of Rs.50,00,000/. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic dispute in the present case, is whether Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules is applicable to the facts of the present case. Rule 10A applies only in cases where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a jobworker on behalf of a person who is supplying the raw materials namely principal manufacturer. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basant Industries V/s. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.) has held that the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on body building activity on behalf of Tata Mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
