Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 1251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 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 of the 2nd appellant. The 1st appellant avail cenvat credit of the inputs and packing materials which are supplied by the 2nd appellant for manufacture of the finished products. The finished products were cleared by the 1st Appellant on payment of duty as calculated under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 They thus discharged duty on 110% of the cost of production as per the CAS-4 certificate. The 2nd appellant availed credit of the du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se 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 appellant manufactured Electric Mosquito Destroyer Machine exclusively on behalf of the 2nd appellant. The goods so manufactured by the 1st appellant carry the brand name of the 2nd appellant. For the period from December 2007 to January 2009, the 1st appellant manufactured combi packs containing the EMD and the liquid refill meant for both domestic sales and export. The 2nd appellant carried out testing and repackings which amounts to 'manufacture'. Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 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 credit. In the said Final Order, the plea of 2nd appellant is noted by the Tribunal that the 2nd appellant has undertaken the activity of testing, re-packing, palletization and shrink-wrapping before export of the finished products. Since such activities are undertaken at the premises of the 2nd appellant, the allegation of the Department that the goods which are cleared by the 1st appellant to the 2nd appellant are exported 'as such' and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ferred 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 payment of duty on clearance of the goods to the 2nd appellant is legal and proper. Undisputedly, the 1st appellant is the job worker of the 2nd appellant. The Ld. Counsel has pointed out that further processes of manufacture takes place at the premises of the 2nd appellant. In case of goods meant for export, the 2nd appellant undertakes testing as well as repacking of the goods. The Department has rejected this plea saying that ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. On these grounds coupled with the fact of revenue-neutrality, we are of the considered opinion that the extended period cannot sustain. The entire demand falls within the extended period. The appellants succeed on the ground of limitation. 9. The 2nd appellant has filed appeal against the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since we have already found that the demand of duty on 1st appellant does not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates