TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 - Held that: - On careful perusal of the MOU, we note that same cannot be considered as arrangement for job work - The fact M/s. Nilkamal has sold the said furniture with much higher price and hence Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, apply to manufacture of the appellant is not tenable. The goods sold by M/s. Neelkamal is on the higher price as it includes expenses like storag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture of plastic furniture under various brand names. Present dispute is with reference to manufacture of furniture with Nilkamal brand name in terms of MOU with M/s. Nilkamal Ltd., owner of Nilkamal brand. Revenue entertained a view that the main appellant did not value their excisable goods properly for payment of Central Excise duty holding that the arrangement is one of the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. had such arrangement with various manufacturers similar to one presently in dispute. In one such case, the proceedings initiated against similarly placed manufacture was dropped by the original authority himself vide order dated 23.1.13 in respect of M/s. I Tech Global Ltd., Gowahati. 3. Learned Counsel also submitted that the value fixed by the appellant for sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute is with reference to valuation of branded furniture cleared by the main appellant with brand name of M/s. Nilkamal. We have perused the MOU dated 10.6.2010. It is apparent that such MOU is not an arrangement for job work and it only specifies that the main appellant shall manufacture furniture of specified quality and raw materials also should be as per the standard and specification of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... includes expenses like storage, advertisement and sales after the goods were received from the appellant. Hence, the difference between the sale price of the appellant and sale price of Neelkamal by itself will not justify the inference of job work arrangement. 7. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find the impugned order cannot be legally sustained and accordingly same is set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
