2018 (10) TMI 265 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for fresh adjudication, stresses thorough examination of activities impacting goods.

C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot Versus M/s Fitwell Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kich Manufacturer, Kich Industries And Jay Bajrang Industries

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh adjudication by the authority, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination ... Valuation - goods manufactured on Job-work basis, sold by the principal - Whether the goods manufactured by job worker and cleared to the principal which subsequently sold by the principal after certain activity would be valued in terms if Rule 10A (ii) or otherwise? Held that:- If there is no substantial change in the product then the goods cleared from the job workers premises will remain the said goods which is subsequently sold by the principal. However, we observed that the adjudicating authority has not properly verified the nature of activity carried out by the principal that whether such activity brought a substantial change in the product so that the identity of the product is changed. This is a vital issue to be verified before going to the conclusion that whether the goods manufactured and cleared by job worker and the same was sold by the principal falls under the term of “Said Goods” then only the obligation of Rule 10A (ii) can be decided. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Application of Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.2. Correctness of valuation adopted by the Respondents.3. Interpretation of whether goods remain the same after certain activities by principal.4. Refund claim validity after payment of duty.Analysis:Issue 1: Application of Rule 10A(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000The case involved a dispute on whether Rule 10A(ii) applied to goods manufactured on a job work basis and sold by the principal. The Revenue argued that since the goods were sold by the principal without substantial changes, Rule 10A(ii) should apply. However, the Respondent contended that various activities by the principal altered the goods, making Rule 10A(ii) inapplicable. The Tribunal noted the need to determine if the nature of the goods changed due to the principal's activities before applying the Rule.Issue 2: Correctness of valuation adopted by the RespondentsThe Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and remanded the case for verifying the correctness of the valuation method used by the Respondents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of assessing whether the activities by the principal altered the nature of the goods, impacting the valuation process.Issue 3: Interpretation of whether goods remain the same after certain activities by principalThe Tribunal highlighted the significance of determining whether the activities carried out by the principal substantially changed the product. If the goods remained the same after these activities, they would still be considered as 'Said Goods' cleared by the job worker and sold by the principal, impacting the application of Rule 10A(ii).Issue 4: Refund claim validity after payment of dutyThe Respondents initially paid the differential duty but later sought a refund, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the matter needed re-consideration by the adjudicating authority to ensure a proper assessment of the issues involved, including the validity of the refund claim post-payment of duty.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh adjudication by the authority, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the activities by the principal and their impact on the nature of the goods. All issues were kept open, and the Respondents were granted a personal hearing before the new adjudication.