9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are involved, is, "whether the Revenue is justified in demanding duty by allowing the valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellant - job worker, in view of the amendment to Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000"? 2. Facts of the case as available in the impounded OIA are considered since apparently, there is no dispute insofar as the facts are concerned. The common facts of the case are that the Appellants are manufacturers of HDPE Bottles falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the disputed period, the Appellants had manufactured excisable goods as a job work out of raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturer namely M/s.Marico Ltd., Puducherry and removed the same to M/s.Marico, by ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) vide Orders-in-Appeal 85/2013 (P)(PD) and 87/2013 (P) (PD) both dated 11.02.2013 had ordered the Appellants to pay pre-deposit. However, since the Appellants had failed to pay the ordered amount of pre-deposit, the appeals were automatically dismissed for non-compliance in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise, Act, 1944. Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred further appeals in CESTAT and the CESTAT remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Final Order Nos.40303/2016 and 40305/2016 both dated 22.02.2016 to decide the case on merits since the appellants had paid the mandatory predeposit before Tribunal. Accordingly, vide the impugned Orders-in-Appeal No. 57 & 58 (CXA-II) both dated 08.02.2017, the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though orders passed separately, wherein, the very same issue has been addressed to and after following other orders of the Coordinate Benches, the impugned demands were set aside. In the said final orders, following orders/decisions have been followed : 1) Pearl Metal Products (Bangalore Pvt. Ltd.) Vs CCE Bangalore - Final Order No.20198 /2025 dt. 13.02.2025 in Central Excise Appeal No.3364 of 2012. 2) Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2011 (274) ELT 261 (Tri.-Bang.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX 3) Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (276) ELT 87 (Tri.-Ahmd.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX 4) CCE Vs. Malters and Blenders India Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
