TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Ujagar Prints [ 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] . - This view of the Bench is in consonance with the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. [ 2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] . In the case in hand, inasmuch as the job-worked goods were sent by the appellants to another job worker for further manufacture and such manufactured goods thereafter were used by the principal-manufacturer for manufacture of a entirely different excisable product. In other words, the Lamination manufactured by the appellants were not used by the principal-manufacturer for manufacture of Compressors . There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellant - the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 737 of 2012 - A/85177/2022 - Dated:- 3-3-2022 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N.N.Prabhudesai, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals-II), Pune vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2012 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellants and rejected the appeal filed by them. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that since the job-worked goods manufactured by the appellants were consumed in the manufacture of final products of the principal manufacturer M/s. ECTIL and were not sold on as it is basis by them, the valuation provisions contained in Rule 10A (iii) read with Rule 8 ibid should not be applicable for determination of duty liability. He further submitted that the method of valuation adopted by the appellants as per the formula laid down in the case of Ujagar Prints Ltd. (Supra) should be applicable for the purpose of determination of the assessable value. To substantiate such stand, the learned Advocate has relied upon the following judgments: (a) Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2011 (274) ELT 261; (b) CCE Vs. Melters and Blenders India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (11) TMI-1465 (affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2018 (12) TMI-1689); (c) Rolast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he buyers. Since the said goods were used by another job worker and such job-worked goods were further used by the principal manufacturer for ultimate manufacture of the final product by themselves, which were subsequently sold in the open market, the valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellants cannot be done as per the provisions of Rule 10A(iii) ibid read with Rule 8 ibid. Rather, in our considered opinion, the valuation in the circumstances of the present case should appropriately be done as per the formula laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints (supra). This view of the Bench is in consonance with the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants. The relevant paragraph in the said decided case is extracted herein below:- 11 . That still leaves us with a question of how the determination of value has to be done as provided under Rule 10A(iii). By elimination of Rule 2 to 10 as they may not apply in a situation like in this case provisions of Rule 11 will apply and Revenue has to take the recourse to provisions of Rule 11 which talks about using ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the earlier order (supra) passed by the Tribunal on identical/similar set of facts, but admittedly so far the said order has neither been stayed nor set aside by the Appellate Court. On plain reading of the above statutory provisions, it reveals that mere filing of an appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court will not automatically take away the effectiveness of the order appealed against and for such purpose; a reasoned order in granting stay of operation of the impugned order is a condition precedent. In this context, the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of VidarbhaVineer Industries Vs. Assistant Collector of C.Ex. [1991 (55) ELT 167 (Bom.)] has held that mere filing of an appeal even if it be in exercise of a statutory right does not operate as a fetter on the effectiveness of the order appealed against and that until varied, modified or stayed, the order is effective and the party against whom it is passed is under an obligation to give effect thereto. Further, in the case of Century Rayon Vs. Union of India, reported in [2002 (142) ELT 319 (Bom.)], the Hon ble Bombay High Court in an identical situation have held as under:- 19 . At the outset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact of determination of value under Rule 8 ibid, when the job-worked Chassis was fitted into the motor vehicle by the principal manufacturer. Contrary is the situation in the case in hand, inasmuch as the job-worked goods were sent by the appellants to another job worker for further manufacture and such manufactured goods thereafter were used by the principal-manufacturer for manufacture of a entirely different excisable product. In other words, the Lamination manufactured by the appellants were not used by the principal-manufacturer for manufacture of Compressors . Further, the issue arising out of the present dispute has been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal (supra), relied upon by the appellants. The said decisions have not been referred to or distinguished by the Larger Bench in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. (supra). 12. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, we do not find any merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellant. Therefore, by setting aside the same, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. (Order pronounced in the open court on 03.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
