2014 (10) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... authority has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 9,07,83,384/- on the main appellant M/s Standard Greases and Specialties Pvt. Ltd. by holding that all the goods manufactured and supplied by the appellant to the brand owner, the assessable value has to be determined under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 2000. He has also confirmed interest on the said duty demands under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 apart from imposing penalty under Section 11AC. He has also imposed penalties of varying amounts on the brand name owners/buyers of the goods under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the transaction between the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from the Petroleum Marketing Companies. Similarly the additives are also purchased from the vendors specified by the brand owners. Thus, there is no supply of inputs/goods either by the principal manufacture or by any person authorized by the principal manufacturer. Therefore, they do not satisfy the definition of job-workers specified under Rule 10A and consequently the duty demand confirmed against the appellant by enhancing the value to the sale price of the brand owners is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as Rule 10A has no application in the present case. The ld. Counsel further submits that in appellant's own case, in respect of its unit situated in Daman, the Ahmedabad Bench of this tribunal had considered the matter and set aside ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Rules. He also submits that what the appellant gets in this transaction is only processing charges plus profit. Therefore, from the agreement entered into between the appellant and the brand owners, it can be clearly seen that the nature of the transaction is one of job-work. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II - 2012-TIOL-267-HC-MUM-CX and of the Tribunal in the cases of Ravikiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2012-TIOL-1386-CESTAT-AHM and Audi Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2010 (249) ELT 124 (Tri-Del). Accordingly, he pleads for putting ....