9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork basis on inputs supplied by the principal manufacturers, however, short paid duty of Rs.20,02,796/- on the value of the said job worked goods. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to them on 31.03.2009 for recovery of the differential duty of Rs.20,02,796/- for the period from 01.04.2007 to 08.09.2008 with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn upheld the order of adjudicating authority; hence the present appeals. 3.1 At the outset, the ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants undertake manufacture of insulated copper conductors on job work basis for the customers namely (i)M/s Kaytee Switchgear Ltd; (ii)M/s BHEL; (iii)M/s Universal Power Transformers and others. The said customers procured duty paid copper rods and were sending it to the appellants, who in turn, availed CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the said copper rods and manufacture insulated copper conductors and clear the finished goods to the said customers on payment of appropriate excise duty. The appellants determined the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd vs CCE, Daman - 2012 (276) ELT 87 (Tri. Ahmd) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Daman vs Roalstar Pvt Ltd - 2013 (298) ELT A186 (SC). 3) CCE, Ahmedabad-II vs Reclamantion Welding Ltd - 2014 (308) ELT 542 (Tri. Ahmd). 4) Indian Extrusions vs CCE, Mumbai - 2012 (283) ELT 209 (Tri. Mum) 5) CCE, Ahmedabad vs Palco Metals Ltd - 2011 (23) STR 289 (Tri. Ahmd) 6) Advance Surfactants India Ltd vs. CCE, Mangalore - 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri. Bang.) 3.6 Further, he submits that therefore, the confirmation of differential duty, interest and penalty are not sustainable and the amount deposited during the adjudication proceeding, be refunded to the appellants. Further, he submits that imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Sh. Ramchandra G.M. is unsustainable, hence, be set aside. 4. Per contra, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order analysing the Rule 10A inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2007 held that sub-rule (iii) of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 be applicable in the circumstances of the case and since principal manufactures consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of said goods from the factory of job-worker; (iii) in a case not covered under clause (i) or (ii), the provisions of foregoing rules, wherever applicable, shall mutatis mutandis apply for determination of the value of the excisable goods : Provided that the cost of transportation, if any, from the premises, wherefrom the goods are sold, to the place of delivery shall not be included in the value of excisable goods. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorised by him. RULE 11. If the value of any excisable goods cannot be determined under the foregoing rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act." 9. Undisputed facts are that the appellants received raw material namely duty paid copper conductors from various principal manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no dispute that the appellant adopted the said procedure to arrive at the assessable value." The said judgment was later upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue reported as CCE, Daman vs Roalstar Pvt Ltd - 2013 (298) ELT A186 (SC). 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs Mahindra Ugine Steel Co Ltd (supra) interpreting Rule 8 and Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for determination of the assessable value of the goods manufactured on job work basis held that Rule 11 would be applicable in arriving at the assessable value of the excisable goods. In the said case, the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts from the raw material supplied by the manufacturers of the motor vehicles on labour charge basis. The manufactured motor vehicle parts are later supplied to the principal manufacturers who used the said parts in manufacture of vehicles. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or Rule 11 would apply in arriving at the valuation of the goods at the end of the assessee. After interpreting Rule 8 and other Rules of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
