9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 720 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - whether the appellant M/s. Inova India is a job worker of M/s. Roca or whether the transaction between the two is on principal to principal basis? - HELD THAT - From the stipulation in the Agreement, it can be seen that the transaction is on principal to principal basis. Further, the very same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/S. INOVA INDIA, M/S. ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY M/S. PARRYWARE ROCA (P) LTD. ) VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II COMMISSIONERATE 2020 (3) TMI 308 - CESTAT CHENNAI and the Tribunal followed the decision in the case SUJHAN INSTRUMENTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II, HONEYWELL ELECTRICAL DEVICES AND SYSTEMS INDIA LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-I AND COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS SUJHAN INSTRUMENTS 2018 (7) TMI 420 - CESTAT CHENNAI to set aside the demand as well as the penalties. The demand cannot sustain. Consequently, the penalty imposed on M/s. Roca also cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant M/s. Inova India is a job worker of M/s. Roca or whether the transaction between them is on a principal-to-principal basis. 2. The correctness of the duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s. Inova India and M/s. Roca Bathroom. Summary: Issue 1: Principal-to-Principal vs. Job Worker Relationship The Department contended that the transactions between M/s. Inova India and M/s. Roca were not on a principal-to-principal basis, instead, M/s. Inova was acting as a job worker for M/s. Roca. The Department argued that the entire manufacturing activities were controlled by M/s. Roca, who fixed the ordinary selling price of the goods, and thus, the value adopted for payment of duty by M/s. Inova was not the sole consideration for sale as per Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Department believed that the goods should have been valued as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Tribunal, however, observed that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis as per the Agreement between the parties. The Agreement explicitly stated that the sale of products by INOVA to RBPPL was on a principal-to-principal basis, and INOVA was fully responsible for the manufacture, sale, and supply of products. The Tribunal also noted that M/s. Inova procured the urinal casings from M/s. Roca by purchase and sale transactions, and not free of cost, which negated the job worker relationship. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in similar cases, including the appellant's own case reported in 2020(3) TMI 308 CESTAT Chennai, and concluded that the relationship was indeed on a principal-to-principal basis. Issue 2: Duty Demand and PenaltiesThe Department issued Show Cause Notices to M/s. Inova India demanding short-paid duty along with interest and imposing penalties, and similarly to M/s. Roca Bathroom for conniving with M/s. Inova. The Tribunal found that since the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis, the duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s. Inova India and M/s. Roca could not be sustained. The Tribunal followed the judicial discipline and the decision rendered in the appellant's own case, setting aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on both M/s. Inova India and M/s. Roca. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs as per the law. (Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2024)
|
