9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BANGALORE] where it was categorically held that the conclusion of lower authority that the relationship between appellant and Sigma is that of job worker and principal manufacturer is incorrect. Therefore, by following the same, we hold that the demand is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellnat - Appeal No. E/787/2006 - A/30683/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Ms. A.S.K.Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing Marine grade paints for M/s Sigma Marine and Protective Coatings India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. Hence the appellant is before us. 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for appellant Ms. A.S. K. Sweta made the following contentions: 2.1 The appellants are not doing any jobwork for Sigma and they are selling the paints on principal to principal basis and accordingly there is no justification in demand of differential duty. It is also contended that the increased value of the inputs does not affect the transaction value adopted by the appellants, as they are selling the paints on the value mutually agreed between the manufacturer and buyer. In case where the cost of the inputs is more, the appellants are put to loss as their profit margins stand reduced. Accordingly, the question of adding the import cost of the inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the issue has been analysed by the Tribunal in the above stated Final order, and it was categorically held that the conclusion of lower authority that the relationship between appellant and Sigma is that of job worker and principal manufacturer is incorrect. The relevant portion of the said Final Order is extracted as under: in our considered view, the findings of the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to come to conclusion that the relationship between the appellant and SIPL is ie. job worker and principal manufacturer is incorrect. By merely indicating the vendors of the raw materials or by giving advance money for procurement of such materials or installing the equipments giving by the SIPL would not render the appellant as a job worker. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
