2007 (5) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of assessable value based on job work arrangement.
2. Applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision on assessing value in job work situations involving multiple units.
3. Pre-deposit requirement and stay petitions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Determination of assessable value based on job work arrangement

The appellant received Aluminium scraps from battery manufacturers, processed them into primary forms at their Taloja Unit, and then transferred them to the Belur Unit for further processing into sheets supplied back to the manufacturers. The advocate for the appellant argued that this arrangement constituted job work, and the assessment should be based on the raw material cost and conversion charge as per the decision in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India. However, the Lower Appellate Authority added profit to determine the assessable value, which was challenged by the appellant.

Issue 2: Applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision

Upon review of the case facts, the Tribunal found that the arrangement was a buy-back arrangement rather than a job work situation. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the cited Supreme Court decision did not address a scenario where job work was conducted in two different units of the same manufacturer. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Supreme Court decision was not directly applicable to the present case, indicating that the appellant did not have a strong case on merit for a full waiver of the pre-deposit.

Issue 3: Pre-deposit requirement and stay petitions

After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal determined that the appellants did not demonstrate any financial difficulty in meeting the duty amount involved. As a result, the stay petitions were rejected, and the appellants were directed to pre-deposit the entire duty amount minus the previously deposited sum within four weeks. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date. The Tribunal disposed of both stay petitions accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the distinction between job work and buy-back arrangements, clarified the limitations of the cited Supreme Court decision, and upheld the pre-deposit requirement based on the lack of financial hardship demonstrated by the appellants.