https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764720 The court rejected the appellants' appeal, affirming that the transaction in question constituted a job work under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to a refund of the duty paid, as the duty was correctly levied under Rule 10A. The court also determined that the body-builders were not liable for the duty, as the duty incidence was borne by the appellants. Additionally, the court concluded that the valuation of goods should be made under Rule 10A, not Rule 6, and denied the appellants' claim for interest on the refund. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764720 The court rejected the appellants' appeal, affirming that the transaction in question constituted a job work under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to a refund of the duty paid, as the duty was correctly levied under Rule 10A. The court also determined that the body-builders were not liable for the duty, as the duty incidence was borne by the appellants. Additionally, the court concluded that the valuation of goods should be made under Rule 10A, not Rule 6, and denied the appellants' claim for interest on the refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764720