https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750730 CESTAT Chandigarh held that the appellants were not job-workers for another company despite financial arrangements where the principal company paid suppliers on appellants' behalf. The tribunal found this was merely a financial arrangement, not a job-work relationship. Revenue failed to establish grounds for rejecting declared value and applying Rule 10A of CEVR 2000 for valuation at 110% of production cost. The absence of job-work indicators in purchase orders and invoices, plus the principal company's payment of full brake shoe value rather than job charges, supported the appellants' position. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750730 CESTAT Chandigarh held that the appellants were not job-workers for another company despite financial arrangements where the principal company paid suppliers on appellants' behalf. The tribunal found this was merely a financial arrangement, not a job-work relationship. Revenue failed to establish grounds for rejecting declared value and applying Rule 10A of CEVR 2000 for valuation at 110% of production cost. The absence of job-work indicators in purchase orders and invoices, plus the principal company's payment of full brake shoe value rather than job charges, supported the appellants' position. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750730