9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue but at the same time did not seek any clarification from the revenue authorities - Secondly, the appellant’s counsel was relying upon show cause notice dated 11.04.2008 to submit that the issue is hit by limitation, may also not carry their case any further as the adjudicating authority while adjudicating the said show cause notice clearly has recorded that the said show cause notice is up to 31.03.2007 - appellant’s case that revenue authorities were aware of the same issue before this adjudication is incorrect as the issue involved in that case was different and for a period up to March, 2007 wherein there was no provision for discharging duty liability under Rule 10A of the valuation rules, 2000. Penalty - Held that:- The penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC)]. There were earlier proceedings against the appellant on the very same products by a show cause notice dated 16.04.1999 for non-inclusion of certain expenses, which culminated on demand being dropped. Similar proceedings were initiated by show cause notice dated 11.04.2008 alleging that valuation should be on the basis of selling price of P & G. The said proceedings were also dropped during adjudication. In the present proceedings, appellant's factory was visited by the departmental officers and noticed that they are functioning as job worker for P & G and were not discharging Central Excise Duty as required under provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Rules, 2000. Noticing such discrepancy show cause notice dated 06.11.2008 was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submission that the arrangement of manufacturing activity is so that appellant manufacture the inhalers and cleared the same to the depot. Hence, the actual activity of the appellant would not fall under provisions of Rule 10A as it contemplates three parties and in the case in hand there are only two parties. It is the submission that on these grounds they had discharged the Central Excise Duty based upon the principles arrived at by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. It is the submission that penalty is not imposable as this was in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. As regards the question of limitation, it is the submission that revenue was fully aware of the activity of the appellant as on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been held that the goods manufactured by them are covered under provisions of Rule 10A as appellant is a job worker. 7. On merits, we find that the issue is no more res integra. It is seen from the records and undisputed that appellant is manufacturing various items like vicks inhalers etc., from the raw material and packing material given by P & G based upon the agreement. Technology of manufacturing such product is also given by P & G. In our view, the provisions of Rule 10A would strictly apply in this case and appellant has to discharge the duty liability under the said rules and not as per the principles laid down by Ujagar Prints. As per the provisions of Rule 10A appellant is required to discharge the duty liability on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
