Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 467 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (6) TMI 467 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Valuation - Includability - Value of valve bodies supplied by principal manufacturer under job work provision as laid down under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Demand of duty and imposition of penalties - Appellant had already paid excise duty on the rubber product manufactured by them and also on the job work charges - Held that:- the job work activity since clearly covered under job work pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y on the machine body supplied by the principle manufacturer therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. Also the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/190/11, E/1201/11 - Order No.A/87348-87349/16/SMB - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. J. N. Tiwari, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. D. K. Sinha, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair These appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ise Tariff Act, 1984. The appellant received bodies of valve under the cover of Annexure II challan under the job work provision laid down under erstwhile Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant carried out the process of bonding of rubber product manufactured by them and the processed goods returned to the principle supplier of valve bodies. The appellant are discharging the excise duty on the valve of rubber product used by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide the impugned order dated 4/5/2011 and 7/12/2010 therefore the appellants are before us. 3. Shri. J.N. Tiwari, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is manufacturer of rubber product, on which they are paying excise duty. In the present case they have not only paid the excise duty on the rubber product manufactured by them but also on the job work charges. As regard the inclusion of value of valve bodies, he submits that valve bodies were received by the appellant under job .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayable on the job work activity by the appellant. He submits that the very same issue is squarely covered by the Hon ble Supreme Court Judgment in case International Auto Ltd Vs. CCE reported in [2005 (183)ELT 239 (SC)]. 4. Shri. D.K. Sinha, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that the appellant is admittedly discharged the excise duty on the job work goods therefore value of the entire goods processed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t under dispute. In the present case the appellant is not paying excise duty on the machine body supplied by the principle manufacturer under job work provision as laid down under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In our view the rubber product which is manufactured by the appellant are only dutiable manufacturing activity of the appellant. They are correctly discharging the duty on such rubber product. As regard the dispute raised by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt also filed declaration to this effect to the Jurisdictional Asstt Commissioner in compliance of condition of the Notification No. 214/86-CE which clearly provides exemption from payment of excise duty on the job work activity subject to condition the principle supplier of raw material discharging the excise duty on their final product wherein job work goods is used. This fact is also not under dispute, in view of declaration filed by the principle supplier of the machine bodies. In the given .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

We are of the view that the submission of the appellant is correct. The Tribunal appears to have been confused between the manufacture of the final product, namely, excavators and the manufacture of the intermediate product, namely, the floor plate assemblies. The scheme of Modvat permits the person who clears the ultimate final product to take the benefit of the Modvat scheme at the time of clearance of such final product. The manufacturer of the final product, in this case TELCO, would theref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version