TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove are not pari materi? - Held that: - Reliance was placed in the case of GAYATRI TEXTILES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [2005 (6) TMI 332 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that The new Rule 4(5) ibid seems to be, by and large, pari materia with the old Rule. Under both these rules, principal manufacturer is permitted to send inputs to his job worker and get back the processed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was initially manufacturing Pipe Diffuser Complete Assembly (PDCA) and were clearing the same on payment of Central Excise duty on the assessable value adopted as ₹ 676.70 per piece. However, subsequently, during the period in question, they changed the manufacturing styles and started working on job worker basis to manufacture the Pipe Diffuser Assembly out of the main two items i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules. Such assemblies were further being used by M/s Majestic Auto Limited for manufacture their final product which were cleared on payments of duty. 5. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the fact of assessable value of the goods, when during the relevant period, the same were admittedly manufactured by the appellants on job work basis and in terms of provision of Rule 4 (5) of Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue that both the Rules are not pari materi. Further we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken note of the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s Gayatri Textiles Vs. CCE, Salem 2005 (188) E.L.T. 350 (Tri. Chenai) wherein it was observed as under:- After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that there is no dispute of the fact that M/s. Gayatri Textiles were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not pari materia and as to how the Tribunal decision in the case of Gayatri Textiles, which hold both the Rules are pari materia would not be applicable. 7. In view of the above analysis, we find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the Tribunal and Hon ble Supreme Court s decision and has rightly extended the benefit to the assessee. 8. We find no infirmity in the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
