2000 (3) TMI 413 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis, liability of duty and penalties, determination of manufacturer in job work scenario

In the judgment delivered by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the case involved M/s. J. Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd., a small scale unit engaged in manufacturing ice creams under an agreement with M/s. Milkfood Ltd. to manufacture ice creams under the brand name 'Milkfood 100%' on job work basis. The dispute centered around the valuation of 'Milkfood 100%' Ice Cream, with M/s. J. Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. having discharged duty based on material costs and job work charges. The impugned order, however, assessed the goods at the price sold by M/s. Milkfood Ltd. and imposed penalties on both manufacturers.

The primary contention raised was the legal basis for treating M/s. Milkfood Ltd. as a manufacturer and using their sale price for assessment. The appellants argued that job workers are the manufacturers, citing the Apex Court's decision in Ujagar Prints case to support assessing value based on material costs and job charges. They further claimed a strong prima facie case and financial hardship to request waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalties.

Regarding the penalty on M/s. Milkfood Ltd., it was argued that their role was limited to ensuring quality standards and did not change the principal-to-principal relationship with the job worker. The Revenue highlighted that undisclosed terms of the agreement showed close control by M/s. Milkfood Ltd., justifying the adoption of their sale price.

The tribunal addressed the issue of determining the manufacturer in job work scenarios, emphasizing that a job worker is considered a manufacturer under central excise laws. While the assessable value should be based on the job worker's value, the specific terms of each agreement dictate the assessment. Given the financial distress of M/s. J. Ice Cream Pvt. Ltd. and the need for detailed hearings to ascertain liability, the tribunal waived duty and penalties for both manufacturers, staying recovery pending further appeals.