TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eta Napthol has been reduced from the total value and their final sale value does not include the value of Beta Napthol, therefore even as per the invoice of the job worker there is no sale of Beta Napthol to the appellant. It is obvious that when the appellant have not sold the Beta Napthol to the job worker there is no transfer of right in the property i.e. Beta Napthol from the appellant to the job worker. Consequently question of sale by the job worker to the appellant does not arise. Since, the transaction of the Beta Napthol by the appellant to the job worker does not fall under the term either sale or transferred in other manner . Therefore, there is no contravention of the condition attached to the N/N. 93/2004-Customs dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r chapter 32 29 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and is holding Central Excise Registration. They are importing raw-materials required for the manufacture of their final product. The appellant had imported Beta Napthol under DEEC and Target Plus Scheme. The said imported goods was removed under Job work challan for conversion into Gamma Acid to M/s. Bondal Chemical Ltd and M/s Shivam Chemicals, Vapi and M/s. Shree Chemicals, Vapi. After processing the said imported goods, they sent back Gamma Acid on their sales invoices. The case of the department is that since the Beta Napthol was cleared under DEEC and Target Plus Scheme under Notification No. 93/2004-Customs dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No. 32/2005-Customs da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was reduced in the job worker s sale invoice, therefore, this clearly shows that the imported goods i.e. Beta Napthol was neither sold by the appellant to the job-worker nor the same was purchased back by the appellant from the job worker. He submits that in case of job-work the goods is neither sold nor transferred otherwise, therefore, the condition of the notification has not been contravened. He further submits that the same transaction was held as job work by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their own case vide order dated 21.09.2011 and the said order was accepted by the Revenue, therefore, the nature of the transaction as job-work has been endorsed by the department. He further submits that in the appellant s own case under the same na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd-1994 (73) ELT 497 (S.C) 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the limited issue in the present case is that whether the transaction of supply of imported Beta Napthol to the job worker and received back Gamma Acid after job work is amount to sale of imported goods or otherwise to the job worker and consequently whether the appellant is entitled for Exemption under Notification No. 93/2004-Customs dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No. 32/2005-Customs dated 08.04.2005 issued under Advance Authorization Scheme and/or Target Plus Scheme. 6. From the facts of the case, we find that the appellant removed Beta Napthol to their job workers under cover of Annexure-II challan. As per the said challan the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the appellant have not sold or transfer Beta Napthol to the job worker or to any other person. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that the transaction of the Beta Napthol by the appellant to the job worker does not fall under the term either sale or transferred in other manner . Therefore, in our considered view there is no contravention of the condition attached to the Notification No. 93/2004-Customs dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No. 32/2005-Customs dated 08.04.2005. 7. We further observed that in the appellant s own case the same transaction has been endorsed as job work in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21.09.2011 which has been accepted by the Revenue. The Adjudicating Authority has brushed aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal-Mumbai Clearly held that advance license holder cannot be prohibited from out sourcing goods imported duty free for manufacturing to other persons even in the said case the goods imported duty free under DEEC scheme was sold to job worker on cost basis and returned as sale by Job Worker after processing/conversion of cost of other material and labour basis. The tribunal held that this was not violative of the prohibition of selling/transferring such goods. The present case is on a better footing as admittedly the appellant has neither sold Beta Napthol to the job worker nor purchased back the same from job worker. 10. As regard the judgment relied upon by Learned Authorized Representative on careful reading of the same we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
