9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law. Whether the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the said Notification while holding that the activity undertaken by the respondent amounted to job work and the value addition clause of the said notification does not provide that the value addition should not include the value of Indigenous material procured and used in the manufacture of final product exported? 2) Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: a) The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals. The respondent entered into a job work contract with one M/s. Agriguard Limited, Ireland to manufacture pesticide formulation on job basis. Under the contract M/s. Agriguard Limited, Ireland were to supply two princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 24/5/2000, the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). By an order dated 18/9/2001, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the respondent's appeal. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Engineering India Limited (supra) is not applicable to the present facts as it dealt with job work as defined under Central Excise Notification and not a Customs notification. Further the value addition in the case of the respondent was more than 32.15% of the CIF value of the imported good, thus achieving more than 10% value addition required by the Notification No.32/97/Cus. dated 1/4/1997. Consequently, it was held that the respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct; b) Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Engineering (supra) to contend that where the job worker contributes his own raw material to the article supplied by the customer and such raw material is substantial then the activity could not be classified as an activity of job work; and c) The value addition as provided in the notification is incapable of fulfillment as the export product also contained indigenous raw material. 6) As against the above Mr. Subodh Joshi, Advocate appearing for the respondent while opposing the appeal submits as under: a) The decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Engineering (supra) is inap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the word jobbing which would mean carrying out work i. e. predetermined job as directed by the supplier of raw material and returning the resultant product to the supplier. The aforesaid activity is admittedly being carried out by the respondent. However, the revenue's contention that the activity carried out by the respondent is not job work in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Engineering India Limited (supra) is misplaced. In the above decision the Apex Court was dealing with Notification issued under the Central Excise Act namely Notification No.119/75 dated 30/4/1975. For the purpose of the aforesaid notification the word job work has been defined in the explanation to the notification. Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is clearly not permissible. All that Customs Notification No.32/97/Cus. dated 1/4/1997 requires is that there should be value addition of 10% or more in the exported product than the value of the goods imported. In this case the admitted position is that there is value addition of 32.15 % more in the exported product than the value of the goods imported. Further, the Notification nowhere provides that the benefit of Notification No.32/97/Cus. dated 1/4/1997 would not be available where any indigenous material is used in the manufacture of export product. It is well settled principle of interpretation of fiscal status that exemption notification has to be strictly read and it is not permissible to either add or subtract words as found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
