9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as per the specifications supplied by M/s Nilkamal Limited. This fact alone will not satisfy the contention that the inputs for the manufacturing of the goods are supplied by the principal manufacturer. The crux of the definition of job worker is in the use of inputs supplied by the principal manufacturer. It is a common understanding that a job worker is the one who works upon the goods supplied directly or indirectly by the principal manufacturer. This fact is totally missing in this case; neither from the terms of contract nor from the show cause notices, it is inferred that the goods are supplied by M/s Nilkamal Limited; therefore, the appellants do not fit into the definition of job worker even for the purpose of Rule 10A. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. 2. Ms. Padmavati Patil, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the contract and relationship between the appellants and M/s Nilkamal Limited is that of principal-to-principal basis; moulds were supplied by M/s Nilkamal Limited on payment of duty to the appellants who availed the credit of the same and returned back to M/s Nilkamal Limited on payment of duty after use; the amortised value of the moulds were included in the assessable value. She submits that just because M/s Nilkamal Limited supplied the moulds, the appellants cannot be considered as job workers . She further submits that the issue is no longer res-integra having been decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Nilkamal Limited M/s Godriw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted on monetary limits and not on merits. Further, he submits that a case involving similar set of the facts is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Innocorp Ltd 2014 (304) ELT A15 (SC) on an appeal filed by the Department. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 5.1 We find that the Department is heavily relying on the definition of job worker as provided under Rule 10A. The definition reads as under:- Rule 10A ---------- ---------- Explanation For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught out as to who would constituted a job worker and observed as under: 38. From the above terms and conditions, it is noted that the Noticee were manufacturing goods from the moulds provided by Nilkamal. There is no dispute about the fact that M/s. Neelkamal supplied only the moulds and the entire raw materials used are procured from the manufacturers on their own. The assessee main contention is that mere supply of moulds by M/s. Nilkamal will not make the noticee a job-worker. There is force in this contention because in normal course and in common parlance, a job-worker is considered as a person who receives at least the major raw materials/goods out of which he makes the final product. The definition of job work/job worker given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods etc from which or out of which the final goods are manufactured and can not include moulds as the final goods are not manufactured from moulds. As already mentioned, the concept of the work and definition given elsewhere also confirm the position. For the supply of the moulds, the assessee pays excise duty on the mould amortization charges and the same are separately shown on the invoices issued by the assessee for dispatch of chairs to the depots of M/s Nilkamal and the valuation aspect is thus taken care of as per Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. The CESTAT, Banglore decision vide Final Order 101 to 103/2009 dated 23.1.2009 read with ROM Order No. 251/2009 dated 24.09.2009 in the case of Nilkamal Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
