2015 (10) TMI 1648 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - Section 10A - Held that - issue is no more res-inegra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the Assessee s own case, for the earlier period, in the case of Ravikiran Plastics Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2014 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . The Tribunal set-aside the impugned order on the identical issue and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants. It has been held that transaction between the Assessee and M/s. Symphony are sales transaction, predominant supply of inputs or goods free of charge to Assessee not established. It is further held that initiations, monitoring and supervision of the manufacturing activities is purely a professional and commercial approach on the part of the brand owner to sustain his business, profitability and also to maintain the quality and timely supply of finished goods to the market to fulfil its sales commitments. It cannot be treated as job work under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. - impugned order is set-aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Valuation of goods for duty payment under Central Excise Act, 1944 - Applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved a common issue regarding the valuation of goods for duty payment under the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically focusing on the applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The case revolved around M/s. Prince Containers Pvt. Limited, engaged in manufacturing Symphony Brand Air Coolers, which were cleared to M/s. Symphony Comfort Systems Limited. The adjudicating authority had held the Assessees liable to pay duty under Rule 10A and imposed penalties. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the Assessee's own case and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal ruled that the transactions between the Assessee and M/s. Symphony constituted sales transactions, not job work under Rule 10A. It was established that the brand owner's involvement in manufacturing activities was a commercial approach to maintain business, profitability, and product quality, rather than job work. Consequently, following the Tribunal's earlier decisions, the impugned order was set aside, and all appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.

---