Rule 10A job-work classification led to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

The Tribunal considered whether the supplies were job-work transactions covered by Rule 10A or principal-to-principal sales, in the context of a request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay. It noted that the relevant inputs were not supplied by the principal manufacturer, the main raw material was independently procured, and only additives were bought from vendors specified by the brand owners. Relying on the co-ordinate Bench view in the appellant's own matter, the Tribunal held that the transaction did not, at this stage, appear to fall within Rule 10A and that a prima facie case for interim relief was made out. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery stayed pending the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the ground that the transaction was not covered by Rule 10A.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the appellant functioned as a job-worker on behalf of the brand owners or whether the supplies were made on a principal-to-principal basis. The relevant inputs were not supplied by the principal manufacturer, and the record indicated that the main raw material was procured independently while additives were purchased from vendors specified by the brand owners. In view of the co-ordinate Bench decision in the appellant's own matter, the Tribunal found that the transaction did not, at this stage, appear to fall within Rule 10A and that the appellants had established a prima facie case for interim relief.

Conclusion: Waiver from pre-deposit was granted and recovery of the adjudged dues was stayed during the pendency of the appeals.

---