2015 (7) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Valuation of goods in the hands of Job Worker - Rule 10A - duty on the value of materials supplied by the principal manufacturer - Demand of differential duty - Penalty u/s 11AC - principal has not paid the duty of excise nor taken the credit - Held that - Appellant produced copy of job work challans, delivery receipt of the materials and while returning the goods they paid excise duty on the cost of value addition in respect of carbon lining/facing undertaken by the appellants. The goods were not sold or cleared to any other persons but returned to the principal manufacturer only. We find that Tribunal in the case of Rolastar Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Daman 2011 (9) TMI 776 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD has held that provisions of Rule 10A would not apply to job worker who has completed job work and returned to the principal manufacturer. Revenue has not disputed the nature of job work undertaken by them and also not disputed the procedure followed by the principal manufacturer. - Prima facie, appellants have made out a case for waiver of total demand. Accordingly, there will be waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery during pendency of appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand on job work for automobile components.
2. Penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 57 of CER 2002.
3. Applicability of Rule 4(5) of CCR 2004.
4. Discrepancy in goods description and duty payment.
5. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in International Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE Bihar.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the demand for differential duty on job work for automobile components carried out by the appellants. The appellants received goods from principal manufacturers for carbon lining and returned them under Rule 4(5) of CCR 2004. The adjudicating authority demanded a significant amount as differential duty and imposed penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 57 of CER 2002.

2. The appellants argued that they correctly paid excise duty on the value of materials added during job work and that the duty should not include the value of materials supplied by the principal manufacturer. They cited previous judgments and Supreme Court decisions to support their case and requested a waiver of predeposit.

3. The respondent contended that the appellants claimed to be only engaged in job work but also paid duty as manufacturers on goods cleared to the principal manufacturer. The respondent argued that the appellants did not inform the department about the job work activities until an audit visit. Additionally, the goods' descriptions and the duty payment were questioned.

4. The Tribunal found that the appellants indeed carried out job work on goods received from the principal manufacturer and returned the processed goods to them. The Tribunal noted that the appellants paid excise duty on the value addition during job work and not on the materials supplied by the principal manufacturer. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellants and granted a waiver of total demand, allowing a stay of recovery during the appeal's pendency.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had substantiated their case for a waiver of total demand based on the nature of job work undertaken and the correct payment of excise duty on value addition. The Tribunal referenced previous rulings to support its decision and dismissed the EH applications while allowing the stay application.