2015 (7) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e components and they received the goods Star Inner Cone/Dual Cone Core automobile components from the principal manufacturers M/s.Natesan Synchrocones Private Ltd. and M/s.Divgi Warner Pvt. Ltd., Pune for carrying out carbon lining and returned the same under Rule 4 (5) of CCR 2004. While returning the goods were described as Synchronise Rings-GBS and appellants have discharged central excise duty on the value addition of carbon lining. The adjudicating authority demanded differential duty on the value of materials supplied by the principal manufacturer and confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,53,43,725/- and also imposed penalty under Section 11AC and also penalty under Rule 57 of CER 2002. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted a wr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... :- (i) International Auto Ltd. Vs CCE Bihar 2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC) (ii) Lawkim Ltd. Vs CCE Pune 2007 (218) ELT 142(Tri.-Mum.) (iii) Automative Stampings & Assemblies Ltd. 2009 (247) ELT 712 (Tri.-Ahmd.) He submits that in view of Supreme Courts judgement in the International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE Bihar (supra) the issue stands settled in their favour. He pleaded for waiver of predeposit. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the adjudication order and submits that appellants on one hand claimed that they have carried out only job work but on the other hand they are claiming that they are manufacturing excisable goods and paid duty on goods cleared to principal manufacturer. They never intimated the department of car .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncipal manufacturer only. We find that Tribunal in the case of Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Daman  2012 (276) ELT 87 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has held that provisions of Rule 10(a) would not apply to job worker who has completed job work and returned to the principal manufacturer. Revenue has not disputed the nature of job work undertaken by them and also not disputed the procedure followed by the principal manufacturer. The only dispute is the appellant discharged duty on the value addition. Therefore, in view of Tribunal decisions referred above, Prima facie, appellants have made out a case for waiver of total demand. Accordingly, there will be waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery during pendency of appeal. Stay application is allowed. We do n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X