9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principal that whether such activity brought a substantial change in the product so that the identity of the product is changed. This is a vital issue to be verified before going to the conclusion that whether the goods manufactured and cleared by job worker and the same was sold by the principal falls under the term of “Said Goods” then only the obligation of Rule 10A (ii) can be decided. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/12008-12013/2017-DB - A/12067-12072/2018 - Dated:- 3-10-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Sameer Chitkara (AR) For the Respondent : Mr. P. Sheth (Advocate) ORDER PER: RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 2016. The Refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority after issuing the SCN dated 16.12.2016 by way of adjudication order. Being aggrieved by the order in original, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order in original and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification of the correctness of the valuation adopted by the Respondents and the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Ujagar Prints (supra). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that Rule 10A(ii) will not be applicable in the respondents case. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also heavily relied upon the judgment of CESTAT in the case of Advance Surfactants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, without challenging the assessment, no refund is maintainable in the light of the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyablue Industries Ltd. vs CC (prev) 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). 3. Sh. Paresh Sheth Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in terms of Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the provision of such Rule shall apply only in a case where the same goods cleared from job worker s premises are sold as such by the principal. In the present case admittedly various activities have been carried out by the principal, therefore, the goods sold by the principal does not remain as Said Goods , therefore, the provision of Rule 10A (ii) shall not apply in the facts of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty carried out by the principal has changed the nature of the goods cleared from the job workers premises. If there is no substantial change in the product then the goods cleared from the job workers premises will remain the said goods which is subsequently sold by the principal. However, we observed that the adjudicating authority has not properly verified the nature of activity carried out by the principal that whether such activity brought a substantial change in the product so that the identity of the product is changed. This is a vital issue to be verified before going to the conclusion that whether the goods manufactured and cleared by job worker and the same was sold by the principal falls under the term of Said Goods then only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
