2019 (1) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Miraj Drymix Pvt. Ltd. has been done rightly for the purpose of levy of duty. 3. The appellant inter-alia is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of wall putty falling under Chapter 32 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period in dispute i.e April 2016 to June 2017, the appellant had entered into an agreement dated 16th June 2016 for manufacture and sale of final product - wall putty, from their factory situated at Behror, District Alwar, for Asian Paints Ltd. (under their brand name). The consideration for such sales was mutually agreed price and the transaction between the two, as per the agreement, is on principal-to-principal basis. The appellant also discharged sales tax leviable on the sale price c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9th July 2018, this Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant holding as follows: "39. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that under the provisions of Rule 10A with Explanation, the condition precedent, i.e supply of raw material by the principal to the other manufacturer - job worker is not satisfied in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we hold that the show cause notice is misconceived and the provisions of Rule 10 A of the Valuation Rules 2000 do not attract in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We also find that the facts herein are squarely covered by the Precedential rulings of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs Innocorp Ltd. in favour of the appellant wherein the facts are simila....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the products and to pack and ship the products in terms of the Purchase Orders of TUPPERWARE, (i) that the agreement left the assessee free to manufacture goods not similar to the products for third parties and (j) that TUPPERWARE was free to source the products from other manufacturers. All these features of the contract would clearly indicate that the assessee was manufacturing the goods for TUPPERWARE and selling the goods to them for a price at arms length on principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the respondents were manufacturing the goods as job workers "on behalf of" TUPPERWARE cannot be accepted. The second requirement noted in para (7.1) was, therefore, not satisfied in this case. 7.....