2018 (3) TMI 1228 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - manufacture of furniture with Nilkamal brand name - Revenue held that the value of branded furniture by the appellant supplied to M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. should be in terms of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. and others vs. CCE & ST, Raipur 2018 (2) TMI 1305 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it was observed that the appellant is the manufacturer and not the job worker. So, Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over valuation of excisable goods for payment of Central Excise duty based on manufacturing arrangement with brand owner.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 74(AB)CE/JPR/2017 dated 28.03.2017. The case involved a dispute regarding the manufacture of plastic furniture under the 'Nilkamal' brand name pursuant to an MOU with M/s. Nilkamal Ltd., the brand owner. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not properly value their excisable goods for Central Excise duty payment, treating the arrangement as that of a principal-job worker relationship. The Revenue argued that the value of branded furniture supplied by the appellant to M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. should be determined under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellants challenged this view, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, both parties were represented by their respective learned representatives, Shri J M Sharma and Shri M R Sharma. After considering the arguments and examining the available evidence, the Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been addressed in the case of M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. and others vs. CCE & ST, Raipur [Final Order No. 50105-50106/2018 dated 1.1.2018]. In that case, it was established that the appellant was the manufacturer and not a job worker, rendering Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 inapplicable.

Based on the precedent and the findings of the Tribunal in the referenced case, it was concluded that the impugned order was to be set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court, providing a resolution to the dispute over the valuation of excisable goods for Central Excise duty payment in the context of the manufacturing arrangement with the brand owner.