9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 463 - AT - Central ExcisePre-deposit - Job Work - Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Principal supplied the raw material and the applicant are manufacturing metal containers on job-work basis and the metal containers are returned to the principal and the principal further use these containers of packing of their final products, which is cleared on payment of duty Held that - As per Indian Extrusions 2012 (5) TMI 271 - CESTAT, MUMBAI which has set aside the demand - Ratio of the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case - In view of the decision, the applicant has made out a strong case, prima facie case Pre-deposit of the dues are waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty based on the application filed by the appellant engaged in manufacturing tins/metal containers on job-work basis for a principal. Interpretation of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules regarding manufacturing goods on behalf of the principal. Application of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. Comparison with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Extrusions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2012 (283) ELT 209. The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 40,24,707, interest, and penalty. The appellant is involved in manufacturing tins/metal containers on a job-work basis for a specific principal, following the principle set by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. The Revenue confirmed the demand citing Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, alleging that the appellant was manufacturing goods on behalf of the principal. The appellant's argument centered around the fact that they received raw materials from the principal to manufacture metal containers on a job-work basis, which were then returned to the principal for packing their final products, not for sale. They relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Indian Extrusions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2012 (283) ELT 209 to support their contention. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported their claim by referring to the findings of the lower authorities and the provisions of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal, in a similar case of Indian Extrusions, had previously set aside a demand confirmed on the same grounds as in the present case. The Tribunal found that the ratio of the previous decision was applicable to the facts of the current case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had established a strong prima facie case. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery during the appeal process. In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and the relevant legal provisions, granted the appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty. The decision was influenced by the application of the principle set by the Supreme Court and the precedent set by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal's ruling provided relief to the appellant by waiving the pre-deposit and staying the recovery process during the pendency of the appeal.
|
