TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. PGIL. It may be noted here that the appellants are also engaged in the manufacture of other goods on job work basis for M/s. Dabur India Ltd. (Hajmola, Funtoo, Honeytex), M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. (Halls, Eclairs) and Nestle India (Polo). 2. The appellant entered into an agreement with PGIL wherein PGIL shall supply the raw materials, manufacturing technology, packing materials etc. to the appellant on job work basis. It has been alleged that the transaction is not on principal to principal basis and the appellant is not an independent job worker and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty on the price charged by the depots of PGIL. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty along with interest. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Indore v. S. Kumars Ltd. reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the appellant entered into agreement with PGIL for job work. The relevant portion of the agreement is reproduced below. "Whereas the manufacturer has the facilities necessary to manufacture the product. And whereas the manufacturer has offered to manufacture the product for the company and the company has agreed to have the products manufactured by the manufacturer, in accordance with the specifications given by the company from time to time, on the terms and conditions mentioned hereinafter. Article I - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship, joint venture or any other relationship, fiduciary or otherwise between the parties hereto. Except as otherwise expressly indicated herein, manufacturers not granted any right or authority to assume or to create an obligation or responsibility, express or implied, on behalf of or in the name of the company or bind the company in any manner whatsoever." 6. On perusal of the agreement, we find that the PGIL shall supply only raw material, packing material and technology necessary for the processing of the goods and appellant shall undertake the manufacture at its factory with its own machines and other resources. It is seen that the appellant undertakes the job work of various companies namely Dabur India Ltd., M/s. Cadbury India Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Department as the appellant was undertaking job work on their goods. Further, incurring of advertisement expenses by PGIL has no relevancy to the valuation of goods produced on job work basis. 8. The learned DR strongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kurnars Ltd. (supra). In that case, the basis of the demand against the respondent was that they were having a common management and control with some of them selling fabrics to the respondent No. 1, which, after processing the fabrics, sold the same to some other respondents. The relevant portion of the same decision is reproduced below :- "We therefore, do not agree that Ujagar Prints III would apply even to a processor who is not indepen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
