2013 (4) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Job Working activity or selling activity - Valuation - rule 10A - appellants manufacture electronic devices and entered into an agreement with M/s. Honeywell. - Held that In this case, M/s. Honeywell is not supplying any inputs or goods. Specification of the manufacturer from whom the appellant should buy the raw materials does not make the supplier of such raw material as a person authorized by him . The appellant can get the goods only if he pays for the goods and not based on any authorization by M/s. Honeywell. - prima facie case in favor of assessee - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants should be treated as job workers of M/s. Honeywell.
2. Applicability of Central Excise Valuation Rules.
3. Legal sustainability of the demand raised by the Revenue.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit and stay of collection of dues.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case was whether the appellants should be considered job workers of M/s. Honeywell. The Revenue argued that extensive control by M/s. Honeywell over the manufacturing process indicated the appellants were job workers. However, the appellants contended that they procured raw materials independently, manufactured goods, and sold them to M/s. Honeywell at arm's length, satisfying the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of any consideration flowing back from M/s. Honeywell to the appellants, leading to the conclusion that the Valuation Rules need not be referred to.

Issue 2:
The applicability of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 10A, was crucial in determining the valuation of excisable goods manufactured by job workers. Rule 10A defines a job worker as a person engaged in manufacturing goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer from common inputs or goods supplied by the principal manufacturer or an authorized person. In this case, M/s. Honeywell did not supply inputs or goods, and the requirement for the appellant to purchase raw materials from specified manufacturers did not constitute authorization by M/s. Honeywell. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and waived the pre-deposit of dues.

Issue 3:
The legal sustainability of the demand raised by the Revenue was challenged by the appellants, who asserted that the price at which they sold goods to M/s. Honeywell complied with Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, eliminating the need to resort to Section 4(1)(b) and the associated rules for determining the value of excisable goods. The Tribunal, after evaluating both sides' arguments, found no basis for invoking the Valuation Rules and supported the appellants' position.

Issue 4:
Regarding the requirement of pre-deposit and the stay of collection of dues, the Tribunal, upon considering the arguments presented, concluded that there was no justification for demanding pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and stayed the collection of dues during the pendency of the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, rejecting the Revenue's contentions and granting relief by waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the collection of dues pending the appeal process.