Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 1227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cures aluminum ingots from the manufacturers, like M/s Sharma Alloys Private Limited, Faridabad; Century Metal Recycling (P) Ltd, Palwal, as identified by their customer, under the cover of invoices directly from them and avail CENVAT credit of the same; as per the arrangement between the appellant and M/s SAL, M/s SAL pays to the manufacturers of Ingots, against the supplies made to the appellant. On the basis of an audit conducted on the records of the appellant, it appeared to the department that the appellants are job workers of M/s SAL; as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods), Rules 2000 or CEVR, 2000 and therefore, Central Excise duty on the brake shoes supplied by them to M/s SAL ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4(1) (a) of Central Excise, Act 1944 and as it was not established that the appellant and SAL are related persons, taking recourse to CEVR, 2000 was not warranted. Commissioner's reliance on Audi Auto Mobiles 2010(249) ELT 124(T); Eicher Motors Ltd 2008(228) ELT 43 (Tri -LB) and Steel Complex Ltd 2005(180) ELT 137 (SC) in the impugned order is misplaced as the facts of the cases were not comparable. He submits that four show cause notices, issued by the department on the very same issue, for the subsequent periods i.e. September, 2011 to December 2014, to the appellants were dropped by Commissioner (appeals), vide order dated 29.06.2016; they have changed the practice of routing the payment for raw material through M/s SAL w.e.f. 01.04.2014 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which indicates that though M/s SAL are making payments to the suppliers of ingots, the same is but on behalf of, the appellants, by debiting to the account of the appellants. It is seen that this is only a financial arrangement and it in itself does not render the appellants to be the job-workers of M/s SAL. 8. We further find that, there is no indication either in the orders placed by M/s SAL on the appellants or in the invoices issued by the appellants to M/s SAL, that the whole arrangement is of any job-work. We find force in the argument of appellants that in case they were performing only the job-work for M/s SAL, there was no need to recover full value of Brake Shoes in place of mere job charges. We also find that the argument of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as "Valuation Rules"), the valuation under Rule 10A is done under the provisions of Section 4 (1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The aforesaid Section 4(1)(b) comes into the picture only and only when the valuation under Section 4(1)(a) is not applicable. I reiterate that the Adjudicating Authority has not bothered to write even a single word to show as to why the above-mentioned Section 4 (1)(a) is not applicable in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Saci Allied Vs CC1: [2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC)] has held that "Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable only when Section 4(1)(a) ibid is not applicable". From the above analysis, it can easi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ority to confirm the demand i.e. to route the payment to the supplier of Aluminium Ingots through M/s Sunbeam ceased to exist from 01.04.2014 as the appellant has started to make the payment directly to the impugned supplier from this date. As the basis of this demand is non-existent from 01.04.2014, the demand after the period 01.04.2014 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. As regards. the period prior to 01.04.2014, the demand thereof is also not sustainable in view of above analysis of this case. 10. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Revenue has not made out any case for rejection of declared value and fixing it at 110% of the cost of production as it is not established the appellants are job-worker .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates