TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erconnected they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration after filtering out unnecessary details are appellant (M/s Elegant Chemicals Enterprises Pvt Ltd.,) is engaged in the manufacture of Vicks Action 500 tablets and Vicks Inhaler as a job worker for appellant no.2 (Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited) on job work basis. The job work agreement between appellant and appellant no.2 was entered on 23.10.2002 and amended and reveiwed from time to time. In addition to the goods being manufactured with the job worker appellant, appellant no. 2 was manufacturing the very same goods on their own. Appellant herein after manufacturing on job work Vicks Action 500 and Vicks Inhaler, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December, 2008 Audit by the Central Excise Audit Group 16.04.1999 SCN issued to the Appellant demanding differential duty on job work valuation 27.09.2005 Appellant submitted details that the goods were valued based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints 14.11.2005 Details of clearances of goods manufactured on job work basis were submitted 18.11.2005 Details of valuation of goods manufactured were submitted 11.04.2008 SCN issued demanding differential duty in respect of goods manufactured as a JW alleging that there was a substantial difference between the assessable value which was adopted and the Retail Sale Price of P & G and therefore the expenses incurred at the Principal Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is an accepted position that in the appellant's own case for the very same period Ujagar Prints case was followed, hence the excise duty is confirmed on different valuation method is incorrect. Further it is his submission that provisions of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules will not be applicable as appellant herein was a job worker and any consideration paid by appellant no.2 to their parent concern was not in the knowledge of the appellant. He would submit that appellant was given a direction to manufacture the goods on job work basis and valuation has to be done in accordance with the documents given to them by appellant no.2 which they have done so. It is his submission that there is no free supply of material to the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 634 (Cal)]. He would also submit that decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vishnu Dyeing & Printing Works [2008 (221) ELT 369 (Tri-Mumbai)] for the proposition that declaration of job worker based on the details disclosed to them by the principal manufacturer and accepted by the department, in the absence of any evidence of misdeclaration by the job worker, extended period cannot be invoked. It is his submission that this judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay as reported at 2009 (239) ELT A84 (Bom). It is his submission that since the demands are not at all sustainable on limitation as well as on merits, imposition of penalties on appellant and appellant no. 2 does not arise. He prays for setting aside the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty to declare the correct assessable value, and appellant has failed to declare correct assessable value. She relies upon the following case laws: i) Karamyogi Dyeing Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, Mumbai [2002 (148) ELT 431 (Tri-Mumbai)] ii) Vishnu Dyeing & Printing Works Vs CCE, Mumbai [2008 (221) ELT 369 (Tri-Mumbai)] It is her further submission that the adjudicating authority in the case as discussed each and every aspect which were argued by the assessee more specifically regarding periodical submission of cost sheets with the authorities, method in which cost of production was arrived as per manufacturing agreement between appellant and appellant no. 2 was also considered in its correct perspective and has come to a conclusion that the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ujagar Prints is directly applicable in the case herein for more than one reason. 9. Firstly, we find that appellant may not be aware as to the fact that appellant no. 2 is paying royalty or technical fee to Procter & Gamble, USA. In fact nothing is brought on record that appellant was aware of payment of royalty charges and technical fees by appellant no.2 to Procter & Gamble, USA and nor there is any allegation in the show cause notice that indicate so. In our view, in the absence of any knowledge of any payment made by appellant no. 2 to Procter & Gamble, USA, it cannot be held that appellant had misdeclared the value of the goods manufactured on job work basis. Further, in the entire proceedings, the Revenue has not disputed that ap....