9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment has not done any inspection or verification at the premises of the 2nd appellant to conclude that further testing or repacking is being carried out on the products meant for exports. Without such investigation, the department cannot mechanically reject the consistent plea put forward by both appellants. In para 7 of the OIo No.12/2013 dated 26.4.2013 the statement given by the Senior manager of 2nd appellant (Sri Parthaarathy) is referred. It is deposed by him on 25.8.2009 before the Superintendent That their quality control department would carry out inspection of the products and then packing, palletization and shrink packing were done. As per section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, manufacture includes any process, incidental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty imposed on the 2nd appellant is also set aside. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI. C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri L. Gokulraj, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri N. Sathyanarayanan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in these appeals being same and connected they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant M/s. Emox Device Co. (hereinafter referred to as 1st appellant) is job worker for M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 2nd appellant) and is engaged in the manufacture of Electric Mosquito Destroyer Machine (EMD) for the second appellant. The 1st appellant manufactures these items exclusively for and on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as compared to value declared by the 2nd appellant at the time of exports. Separate show cause notice was issued to second appellant proposing to impose penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest. Penalties were imposed on both the appellants. Aggrieved by such order, appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 4. The Ld. Counsel Shri L. Gokulraj appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the issue to be considered is whether the valuation adopted for the products cleared by the 1st appellant to 2nd appellant for the purpose of export is in accordance with law. The 1st appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities amount to manufacture and therefore the allegation that the goods are exported as such by the 2nd appellant is without any factual basis. 4.2 Moreover, the entire transactions are revenue-neutral in nature. Even if the 1st appellant pays the duty as demanded by the Department, the 2nd appellant would be eligible for credit. For this reason, the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. 4.3 It is submitted that the 2nd appellant was issued SCN by the Department alleging availment of ineligible credit on the ground that the activities undertaken by them do not amount to manufacture . The Tribunal vide Final Order No.41251/2020 dated 18.11.2020 disposed of the said appeal holding that the 2nd appellant is eligible for cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any manufacture has taken place at the premises of the 2nd appellant. Apart from putting forward a plea in the reply to SCN that testing as well as repacking of goods was undertaken at the premises of 2nd appellant, there is no evidence adduced. For these reasons, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand. The 1st appellant has to adopt the assessable value as declared by the 2nd appellant for exports. The goods stock transferred from the premises of the 1st appellant to the 2nd appellant are completely finished products. There is no further process of manufacture. It is prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the value adopted by the 1st appellant for pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al authority or the Commissioner (Appeals), Merely on the basis of difference in assessable value of the goods cleared by the 2nd appellant for export, the department has proceeded to issue SCN and confirm the demand. 8. On the totality of facts, we find that the situation is entirely revenue-neutral. Even if the 1st appellant discharges duty as confirmed by the Department, the 2nd appellant would be eligible to avail credit of such duty. The SCN has been issued invoking extended period alleging suppression of facts. There is no positive act of suppression established by the Department. Further, both appellants have paid duty during the disputed period. This itself would show that the 1st appellant had no intention to evade payment of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
