9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 893 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - job-work - Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - it was alleged that M/s ISGEC is selling the goods as such as the appellants have manufactured the goods in complete form, therefore, in terms of Rule 10A(ii), the appellants are required to pay the duty on the value at which M/s ISGEC sold the goods - Held that - Although we hold that the appellants are required to pay duty as per the Rule 10A(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 2000 but on the amount on which duty have been demanded from the appellants, duty has already been paid by the M/s ISGEC on the said amount. If the duty has been demanded from the appellant, in that circumstances, it will be the case of demand of duty twice on the same product which is not permissible in law - demand set aside. Penalty - Held that - as duty has been paid on the transaction value of the said goods, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants were having any intention to pay less duty on the said goods - penalty also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against differential duty, interest, and penalty imposition; Application of Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000; Liability of job worker for duty payment; Revenue neutrality; Imposition of penalty. Analysis: 1. Appeal Against Differential Duty, Interest, and Penalty Imposition: The appellants appealed against the orders demanding differential duty, interest, and penalties. The case involved the manufacturing of economizer coils and super heater coils by the appellants as job workers for M/s ISGEC. The dispute arose when it was alleged that M/s ISGEC sold the goods as manufactured by the appellants, leading to a demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties. The appellants argued that they were only job workers and that the goods were cleared by M/s ISGEC after testing and payment of duty. The Tribunal acknowledged the liability to pay duty under Rule 10A(ii) but concluded that since duty had already been paid by M/s ISGEC on the same goods, demanding duty from the appellants would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. 2. Application of Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000: The Revenue contended that the appellants were required to pay duty on the goods cleared to M/s ISGEC as per Rule 10A(ii) of the Valuation Rules. However, the Tribunal held that while the appellants were liable to pay duty under this rule, the duty had already been paid by M/s ISGEC on the same transaction value. Therefore, no additional duty was payable by the appellants in this case. 3. Liability of Job Worker for Duty Payment: The appellants argued that as job workers, they manufactured the coils for M/s ISGEC, who then cleared the goods on payment of duty. They emphasized that M/s ISGEC had already paid duty on the transaction value, making any additional duty demand unjust. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, ensuring that duty was not levied twice on the same product, considering the revenue neutrality of the situation. 4. Revenue Neutrality: The Tribunal highlighted the revenue-neutral nature of the case, where the goods had already been cleared by M/s ISGEC on payment of duty. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that demanding duty from the appellants would result in double taxation, which was not the intention of the law. Therefore, no duty was deemed payable by the appellants in this scenario. 5. Imposition of Penalty: Regarding the imposition of penalties, the Tribunal found that the appellants had not suppressed any facts or undervalued the goods. The understanding between the parties regarding testing and manufacturing activities, along with the duty paid by M/s ISGEC, indicated no intention on the part of the appellants to evade duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that no penalty was imposable on the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals filed by the appellants with any consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of avoiding double taxation and ensuring fairness in duty imposition based on the specific circumstances of the case.
|
