9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 315 - AT - Central ExciseValuation Job work - agreement was for manufacture and supply of paints, on principal to principal basis and the indication in the clause specifically indicates that all the taxes to be paid on such sale prices at the time of supply of paints by the appellant - agreement between both the parties indicating that the prices which are charged by M/s. Coromandel should be treated as sale to SIPL and on the full value they have to discharge the duty liability and sales tax - findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to come to conclusion that the relationship between the appellant and SIPL is i.e. job worker and principal manufacturer is incorrect - merely indicating the vendors of the raw materials or by giving advance money for procurement of such materials or installing the equipments giving by the SIPL would not render the appellant as a job worker paint manufactured of specific application and nothing wrong in buyers specifying vendor for raw materials - orders were unsustainable and liable to be set aside Appeal allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant can be considered as a job worker under the provisions of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 2. Whether the relationship between the appellant and SIPL is on a principal-to-principal basis or that of a job worker and principal manufacturer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Job Worker Classification under Rule 10A: The core issue revolves around whether the appellant qualifies as a job worker under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellant contended that they are not job workers but operate on a principal-to-principal basis with SIPL. They argued that the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was correctly applied, as there was no additional consideration or incorrect transaction value. The appellant highlighted that they procured raw materials independently and negotiated prices, and the advances received from SIPL were standard commercial practices. The Revenue, however, argued that the agreement between the appellant and SIPL indicated control by SIPL over the appellant's operations, including the procurement of raw materials and the use of equipment supplied by SIPL. The Revenue emphasized that the appellant's role was akin to that of a job worker, as defined in Rule 10A, which necessitated the application of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act for valuation purposes. 2. Principal-to-Principal Relationship: The appellant maintained that their agreement with SIPL was for the manufacture and supply of paints, indicating a principal-to-principal relationship. They pointed to specific clauses in the agreement that outlined mutual benefits and reasonable pricing, reinforcing the commercial nature of their relationship. The appellant also noted that the raw materials and packing materials were procured independently, and the equipment supplied by SIPL was of a general nature and not exclusively used for manufacturing paints for SIPL. The Revenue countered by asserting that the agreement's terms, such as the return of raw materials and packing materials to SIPL and the supervision of initial production batches by SIPL employees, demonstrated SIPL's control over the appellant's manufacturing process. This control, according to the Revenue, aligned with the characteristics of a job worker relationship. Findings and Conclusion: The Tribunal examined the facts, the agreement between the parties, and the relevant statutory provisions. It was undisputed that the appellant had spare manufacturing capacity and entered into a commercial agreement with SIPL to utilize this capacity. The agreement explicitly stated that the relationship was on a principal-to-principal basis, with the appellant responsible for procuring raw materials, manufacturing paints, and paying applicable taxes on sales to SIPL. The Tribunal found that the appellant's procurement of raw materials and the commercial terms of the agreement did not support the Revenue's claim of a job worker relationship. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere provision of equipment and advances by SIPL did not alter the principal-to-principal nature of the transaction. The Tribunal also referred to the precedent set in the case of Gillette Diversified Operations Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, which supported the appellant's position. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not a job worker under Rule 10A, and the relationship with SIPL was indeed on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in court on 8-9-2010.
|
