TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were manufacturing Metal Steel Container on their own as well as on job work basis and splitting up the clearances availing the exemption from payment of central excise duty under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as amended. On a search and further investigation, it was found that the assessees were engaged in manufacture of metal tin container without obtaining central excise registration. For manufacture of tin container. One another unit M/s Shriji Packaging which is also located in the same premise, purchased tin plates from manufacturer like SAIL and sold the same on resale basis to the owner of oil mills. These oil mills owners than sent the tin plates for converting into metal tin co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, he do not contest the demand on the ground of eligibility of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE. He further submits that as regard the demand of duty on job work basis, the adjudicating authority has considered the value as per M/s Ujagar Prints case i.e. raw material cost + job charges. He submits that the same goods were sold by the appellant to various buyers, therefore, the sale price of the same goods was available, in such case as per the judgment of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ispat Industries 2007 (2) TMI (5) (Tri.LB), when the sale price of same goods is available which is manufactured on job work basis, the sale price will apply instead of the value adopted in principle of M/s Ujagar Prints. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iple laid down in the case of M/s Ujagar Prints. He submits that firstly, in this case, the period is prior to introduction of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Secondly, the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of M/s Ispat Industries was not before the Division Bench of this Tribunal, therefore this judgment is not applicable. 3. Sh. S.K. Shukla Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records, we find that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of tin containers for edible oil manufacturing company. The said tin containers were manufactured on job work basis as well as the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittedly used by the appellant for job work. The same has been endorsed by the department by taking cost of raw material from the same invoices. In this position merely because the name of the appellant is not appearing on the invoices, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. In any case when the job worker manufactured the goods out of raw material belongs to the principal, the purchase invoices will obviously be in the name of principal and not in the name of job worker, however the fact remains that the said duty paid goods were used by the appellant in the manufacture of job worked goods, therefore, credit is clearly admissible on such invoices of tin plate to the appellant. 5. As per our above discussion we hold that the valuation of job worke....