2017 (1) TMI 833 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N.32/97-Cus - denial on the ground that major quantity of raw materials used was indigenous and not imported and thus, the respondents could not be said to be job-workers - The Assistant Commissioner in his order noted that the major quantity of raw-materials used in the process was purchased by the respondents themselves, though in value terms it was very small as compared to the value of imported goods. The Assistant Commissioner, therefore, allowed the exemption to the appellants. Held that - no new ground has been raised by the Revenue in their appeal. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has adequately dealt with this issue. We are in agreement with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against granting benefit of Notification No.32/97-Cus to the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upholding the Assistant Commissioner of Customs' decision to grant the benefit of Notification No.32/97-Cus to the respondent. The notification exempts imported goods from Customs duty and CVD subject to specific conditions.

2. The main issue revolved around whether the respondents qualified as job-workers under the notification. The Assistant Commissioner noted that while the major quantity of raw materials used was indigenous, the value was small compared to the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in M/s.Prestige Engineering (I) Ltd. case and Circular No.18/2004, which clarified that the use of indigenous materials does not disqualify the process as job-work.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the definition of jobbing includes a liberal interpretation, focusing on the value of inputs rather than quantity. The circular highlighted that substantial use of indigenous raw material could be in terms of value as well, depending on the case. In this instance, the indigenous raw material constituted only 8% of the total value, which was deemed insignificant.

4. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not meet the job-work criteria as most raw materials were locally sourced, outweighing the imported materials. However, the Tribunal found no new grounds in the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the issue had been adequately addressed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations of relevant notifications and circulars, and the reasoning behind the decisions made by the authorities involved in the case.