TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1034
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments on job work basis under contract with M/s Procter & Gamble Co. (USA) (P & G). In terms of the agreement entered with P & G appellant are required to manufacture final products from raw materials and packing materials supplied to them against various excise invoices issued by P & G and also manufacturing technology required to do so. The agreement is on principal to principal basis i.e., appellant has to discharge Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured and cleared as per the contract entered by them for the amounts to be received as consideration by them and supply the final product to P & G. Appellant were discharging Central Excise duty on the said products as the manufacturer on the value arrived in terms of principles laid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and submits that provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Rules will not apply as the relationship between appellant and P & G is on a principal to principal basis, there is no control or supervision of P & G in the manufacturing activity; Rule 10A of the valuation rules is not applicable to the present case as the said rule would apply where the excisable goods are manufactured by job worker on behalf of the manufacturer. It is his submission that appellant herein though is a job worker is not manufacturing the goods on behalf of principal manufacturer but for the manufacturer. It is his submission that the phrase "on behalf of" would mean that the job worker is either an employee of the supplier of raw material or is an agen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is also the submission that similar issue has been decided in the case of Makson Healthcare Pvt Ltd by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 54667-54668/2016. He produced the copy of the same. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The demand of the duty on the appellant is for the period 01.04.2007 to 29.02.2008 by show cause notice dated 06.11.2008. The said show cause notice has invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground that appellant was aware that the Central Excise Duty on the goods manufactured by them is required to be discharged as per the provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. To come to such a conclusion, the adjudicating authority has relied up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 10A. In our view, the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority on the question of limitation, are unassailable. The correspondences entered into by the appellant with P & G indicates that they were concerned with the issue but at the same time did not seek any clarification from the revenue authorities. Secondly, we find that the appellant's counsel was relying upon show cause notice dated 11.04.2008 to submit that the issue is hit by limitation, may also not carry their case any further as the adjudicating authority while adjudicating the said show cause notice clearly has recorded that the said show cause notice is up to 31.03.2007. The dates are very important on this issue as from 01.04.2007, provisions of Rule 10A came in....