TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Duty Penalty E/531/11 Press Metal Industries Nashik 16.12.10 24.08.10 1016647 1016647 E/532/11 Nashik Metal Dust Nashik 16.12.10 26.08.10 42526 42526 E/533/11 Power Deal energy, Nashik 16.12.10 31.08.10 1462392 1462392 1.2 Initially these three matters were listed for hearing on 11.10.2018. On that date Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that on the same issue nineteen more appeals are pending before the Tribunal. Accordingly all the nineteen appeals as detailed below in table 2, were also listed simultaneously and all the appeals heard together on 16.10.2018. Table 2 Appeals pointed out by the Counsel to be on same issue and listed for simultaneous hearing on 16.10.2018 Appeal No Appellant OIA Date Duty 'Rs Penalty 'Rs E/959/2011 Apollo Soyuz Electricals, Mumbai 20.04.11 474792 474792 E/1299/2011 Perfect Auto Products, Nashik 29.06.11 241140 241140 E/13/2012 Shripad Enterprises, Mumbai 28.09.11 825883 825883 E/14/2012 L & T Shripad 363000 E/15/2012 Aksai Controls, Mumbai 28.09.11 1146475 1146475 E/16/2012 L & T Aksai 500000 E/484/2012 P R Electricals Mumbai 18.01.12 40675 E/485/2012 L & T -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... require to show cause why the value of said designs and drawings received free of cost from M/s L & T should not be added to the transaction value for determination of the assessable value of the goods manufactured and supplied as per the said designs and drawings. h. Accordingly appellants were required to show cause why the Central Excise duty short paid for the reason of non inclusion of the money value of designs and drawings should not be demanded from them by invoking extended period of limitation as provided for by the proviso to Section 11A (1). Penalty under Section 11AC was proposed and interest under section 11Ab also demanded. 2.2 The show cause notices have been adjudicated confirming the demand and interest. Penalties have also been imposed under Section 11AC. 2.3 Against the order of the adjudicating authority appellants had filed appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) which have been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) appellants have filed these appeals before Tribunal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate and Shri Mohit Rawal, Advocate for the appellant. We have heard Shri N N Prabhudesai, Superintendent Authorized Represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STATMUM], Macawber Beekay Ltd {2008-TIOL-2704- CESTAT-DEL], SWIL Ltd [2001 (128) ELT 510 (TCal)] iv. On issue of revenue neutrality and limitation he relied on decision of larger bench in case of Jai Yushin [2000 (119) ELT 718 (T-LB)] and decision in case of Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Vyvasaik Krushi Purak Seva Sanstha 2014 (309) ELT 273 (T-MUM)]. He also relied upon the decisions in case of Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd. [2011 (265) ELT 81 (T-Del)], MIDCO Ltd {2009 (247) ELT 441 (T-Ahd)], Baba Asia Ltd [2011 (267) ELT 115 (T-Del)], Hero Honda Motors Ltd {2011 (273) ELT 89 (T-Del)] v. On the issue of claim of admissibility of exemption under Notification No 214/86-CE he stated that just availability of option or a scheme do not justify clearance of goods on short payment of duty. Once the appellants have availed the option to pay the duty, then they have no option to short pay the duty payable in respect of the goods cleared. 4.1 we have considered the submissions in the appeal during the course of argument by the counsels for the appellant and authorized representative. 4.2 During course of arguments appellants have submitted the sample set of documents in money value of which was sough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terials, in the production of such goods; (iv) value of engineering, development, art work, design work and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the factory of production and necessary for the production of such goods. 4.6 The rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 which reads as follows was under consideration before in the decisions rendered for period of dispute before 1.07.2000. "Rule 5 Where the excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act except the circumstance where the price is not the sole consideration for sale, the value of such goods shall be based on the aggregate the aggregate of such price and the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee." 4.7 The decisions rendered in the case relied upon by the Appellant were rendered for the period prior to 1st July 2000, when Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 did not determined the assessable value based on the transaction value and were in context of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 1975. List of such decisions which were rendered for the period prior to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants also. 7However, we find that the appellants in their proceeding before the Commissioner (Appeals), have taken a specific stand that the total value of the drawing purchased by their customer from M/s. Proll & Lohmann, has been taken into consideration, which are drawings for the entire Lead Quenching Line. The Bath in question manufactured by the appellants, is only the component of the said Line. Further it is submitted that an order supplied for three numbers of Lead Annealing Bath were placed upon them whereas they have only manufactured and supplied one number. As such, it has been argued that the said designs and drawings can be further used for the manufacture of remaining number of Lead Annealing Bath. We agree with the above contentions of the ld. advocate. The value of the drawings has to be added to the value of the Lead Annealing Bath on proportionate basis. There is no justification for adding value of the entire designs and drawings supplied by the appellants' customer representing the cost of the designs for the entire Lead Quenching Line in the value of one of the component of the said Line. Further, the authorities may also look into the appellants'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sale of the finished product. The other consideration is the value attributable to the use of the mould. In this view of the matter, we are not in a position to agree with the conclusions arrived at by West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in the three decisions referred to earlier. With respect we approve the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Flex Industries Ltd. case (supra)." This decision of larger Bench was considered and approved to by Bombay High Court in case of Bright Brothers {2015 (322) ELT 110 (Bom)] "9. Paragraph 47 of the Order-in-Original indicates as to how there were two orders of the Tribunal and which apparently took conflicting views. Eventually, the matter was resolved by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.). The Tribunal held that so long as the mould is being used in the manufacture of the finished product it contributes certain value to be added to the value of finished products. This additional value must necessarily go in assessing the duty payable on the finished product under Excise Law. The assessee contended that until this position was settled, they acted i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in case of International Auto [2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC)] are as follows: "The appellant is a job worker manufacturing floor plates assemblies for TELCO. These floor plate assemblies are used by TELCO in the manufacture of excavators. TELCO made available several inputs to the appellant for the purpose of manufacture of the assemblies on which credit had been taken by TELCO. The appellant used TELCO's inputs as well as its own inputs in manufacturing the assemblies. It cleared the assemblies from its factories upon payment of excise duty on the completed floor plate assemblies by including the value of only the inputs put in by the appellant and adding thereto its service charges." 5.2 From the facts as in the present case, appellants are undertaking manufacture of the goods as per the drawings and design provided by L & T. During the entire proceedings there is not even whisper of the fact in respect of the supply of inputs in respect of which the L & T has taken credit. Further the transactions between the appellant and the L & T were that of sale and purchase and not on the basis of job charges. Commissioner (Appeal) has in his order in appeal in para 15 recorded as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in contending that each and every situation cannot be termed as a revenue neutral situation. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He is also justified in contending that failure on the part of an assessee to clear the duty in the time when it becomes due and payable results not only in the loss relating to principal amount of duty but also to interest which may accrue on such duty amount. Being so if the duty was required to be cleared on January 2008, on account of litigation, the payment was delayed merely because, on that day, the appellant had some credit available in his account, if sought to be utilised in 2010, certainly in such situation it cannot be said that the relief would be of a revenue neutral situation." 5.4 In case of Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd [2011 (265) ELT 81 (T-Del) again the plea of revenue neutrality was rejected stating "7. The appellant have cited the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases of CCE, Jamshedpur v. Jamshedpur Beverages reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), C&CE, Pune v. Textile Corporation Marathwada Ltd. reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.), CE&C (Appeals), Ahmedabad v. Narayan Polyplast reported in 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal was dismissed. 7.5 In none of the above judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a general principle that in a revenue neutral situation an assessee is not required to pay the duty. Dismissing Department's SLP on the ground that charging duty on an intermediate product whose Cenvat credit is available to the assessee, is revenue neutral, does not amount to laying down a general principle in this regard. There is no such provision in the Central Excise Act that in respect of goods cleared for captive consumption when the Cenvat credit of duty paid on such goods is available, no duty is required to be paid in such cases. Keeping in view the aspect of revenue neutrality, the Central Government by exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has exempted the goods cleared for captive consumption from whole of the basic excise duty and AED (GSI) but when the NCCD was introduced w.e.f. 1-3-01 by Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001, simultaneous with the introduction of NCCD, the exemption from NCCD in respect of goods cleared 'for captive consumption was not provided by issue of an exemption Notification under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the inputs used in the manufacture of their goods viz., the components received from MUL had not been included in the assessable value and the goods had been cleared and sold to MUL on that basis. The plea of the appellants that they had not received any additional consideration as stated by them in their declaration cannot also be accepted in the admitted facts of the case where the components were supplied free of cost from MUL and the appellants had sold the said components back to MUL after carrying out manufacturing processes. The intention to evade duty is clearly established in view of the fact that there was substantial difference between the actual duty paid by the appellants at the time of clearances of the final products without including the cost of the free components received from MUL and the duty payable by them after including the same in the assessable value. This worked out to over Rs. 55 lakhs. The financial gain by way of availability of the said amount was a clear pointer as to the reason for their non-disclosure of the cost of the free components received from MUL and their intention to evade duty. As regards the contention of the appellants that they were at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, the non-paymert/short payment was not attributable to any intention to evade payment of duty. In the other seven cases viz., cases against Sl. No. 1,3,5,9,10,11 and 12 in the list of cases mentioned in Para 9 above, the option of availing Modvat credit was available to the assessee even though he was not availing of it. In the present case, the claim of the appellants that duty free clearance under Notfn. No. 214/86 was concurrently available to them and therefore no intention to evade duty payment can be inferred does not appear to merit acceptance since it is not in dispute that the appellants were admittedly availing of modvat credit under Rule 57A and Rule 57Q. There is also no evidence on record to show that MUL had given any undertaking under Para 2 of Notfn. No. 214/86 in relation to the manufactured items sold by the appellants to MUL. The said defence cannot therefore be accepted for want of factual substantiation. As regards the contention of the appellants that the SCN issued under Section 11A(1) would apply only to a situation where a duty payment is subsisting at the time of issue of notice and where no such outstanding duty liability exists at the time of is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....answer the reference as under: (a) Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in the facts of each case and not merely by showing the availability of an alternate scheme; (b) Where the scheme opted for by the assessee is found to have been misused (in contradistinction to mere deviation or failure to observe all the conditions) the existence of an alternate scheme would not be an acceptable defence; (c) With particular reference to Modvat scheme (which has occasioned this reference) it has to be shown that the Revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of the assessee's manufactured goods; (d) We express our opinion in favour of the view taken in the case of M/s. International Auto Products (P) Ltd. (supra) and endorse the proposition that once an assessee has chosen to pay duty, he has to take all the consequences of payment of duty. 5.6 In the case of Kitply Industries [2011 (267) ELT 289 (SC)] Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "2. Our attention is drawn to the impugned judgment and order passed by CEGAT, West Regional Bench at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rger bench of Tribunal in similar manner distinguished the case of Apex Court in case of International Auto, supra and has held as follows: "7.1 The term manufacture is defined under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act which includes any process (i) Incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product ; and (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or (iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labeling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer, and the word manufacturer shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacturer of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account; [Emphasis supplied] The definition of the manufacturer says that any person who is eng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002 relied upon by the Appellant in support of their contention read as under : Rule 4(5)(a) - The CENVAT credit on inputs shall be allowed even if any inputs as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repairing, re-conditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans or memos or any other document produced by the assessee taking the CENVAT credit that the goods are received back in the factory within one hundred and eighty days, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs or capital goods by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise, but the manufacturer can take the CENVAT credit again when the inputs or capital goods are received back in his factory Rule 4(6)? The Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer of the final products who has sent the input or partially processed inputs outside his factory to a job-worker may, by an order, which shall be valid for a financial year, in respect of removal of such input or partially processed input, and subject to such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o has undertaken the activity of manufacture is liable to pay duty. In order to save the jobworker from payment of duty the Principal manufacture has to own the liability to pay such duty. It is only by virtue of the Notification No. 214/86 CE dt. 25.03.1986 that the liability of the jobworker to pay duty is transferred to the Principal manufacturer who undertakes to pay duty. 7.7 The intention of enactment of Notification(supra) was to shift the liability of payment of duty from jobworker to the Principal manufacturer under certain conditions as provided in the said notification. There is no blanket machinery provisions in the central excise law under which the liability to pay duty is transferred from the job work manufacturer to another person i.e Principal manufacturer. However when the Principal manufacturer does not own up the liability to pay duty on finished goods, the provision of Notification No. 214/86 CE dt. 25.03.1986 does not apply. In that case, it is the ultimate manufacturer i.e the jobworker who has to pay the duty. Following the procedure and conditions of the Notification(supra) only by the Principal manufacturer, the jobworker would be saved from payment of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising out of job work were to be used by the Principal manufacturer either in the manufacture of goods on which duty was paid by him or were to be cleared as such on payment of duty. The said situation given in Rule(supra) cannot be equated with the present situation as Rule 4 (5) (a) not being concerned with payment of duty but only limited to sending of cenvated inputs to the jobworker. 7.10 In the present case the fact remains is that neither the goods after jobwork were cleared as such on payment of duty nor were used in manufacture of dutiable final products by the Principal manufacturer. Hence the duty liability would be on the real manufacturer of goods i.e the Jobworker. Since the Principal manufacturer pays the duty on the product arising out of manufacture even at the jobworkers end, he is eligible to avail credit. The Rule 4 (5) (a) thus is a facility to the principal manufacture to send goods for jobwork on which cenvat has been availed. It is nothing to do with the duty payment of goods. 7.11 Rule 4 (6) is a facility to the Principal manufacturer to clear the goods directly from the premises of jobworker after payment of duty. Notably it is not the case of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if the job worker was not required to pay duty in terms of Rule 57F(4) it could be required to pay duty in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) because the conditions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were stringent compared to the conditions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules inasmuch as Rule 57F(4) categorically required the principal manufacturer to use the goods received from the job worker for further use in the manufacture of the final product or removing after payment of duty for home consumption or removing the same without payment of duty for export while Rule 4(5)(a) does not say so expressly though it is implicit therein. Thus, we are of the view that for the purpose of dutibility at the hands of the job worker, the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 are essentially pari materia the Provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Indeed vide judgments in the case Mukesh Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (supra) CESTAT essentially held as under : Duty liability - Job worker - Respondents receiving grey MMF and knitted or crocheted fabrics from principal manufacturer under the cover of challans issued under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the liability of is on the manufacturer of intermediate product, i.e. job worker in the present case. 7.15 The reliance placed upon the Circular No. 306/22/97/ - CX dt. 20.03.1997 is also misplaced since the circular was with reference to the situation upon eligibility of the jobworker to claim credit where no duty was paid by them. However the facts of the present case are different as it deals with the situation as to who should be liable to pay duty when the Principal manufacture is not discharging duty either on jobwork goods or on final products in which such jobwork goods are consumed. In such case the responsibility lies the Jobworker who is the ultimate manufacturer of the goods to discharge the excise duty. 7.16 Revenue has placed reliance upon the Tribunal judgment in case of M/s Facit Asia Ltd. Vs. CCE 1991 (54) ELT 347 (TRI) = 2002-TIOL-128-CESTAT-MAD. Tribunal was seized of the question as to whether the duty paid by the jobworker is available to the Principal manufacturer when the jobworker could have availed exemption under Notification No. 214/ 86 CE. The Tribunal rightly held that if the jobworker has paid duty even though he was eligible to avail exemption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....57F(2). In view of this, the reliance placed by the Appellants on the observation of the Tribunal in respect of Notification 214/86 in the remand order is not tenable. We also observe that the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter in the light of the observations and also according to the law. Notification No. 214/86 nowhere provides that the supplier of the raw material will be liable to pay the duty on the goods manufactured as a job work. Para 2 of the Notification No. 214/86 speaks of the liability of the supplier for discharging the duty leviable on the finished products and not on the goods manufactured on job work basis. The Adjudicating authority has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Jina Bakul Forge Pvt. Ltd (supra). Accordingly, we uphold the demand of Central Excise Duty as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Orders. 7.19 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Kartar Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2006 (197) ELT 151 (SC) = 2006-TIOL-46-SC-CX held that the assessee jobworker i.e the Appellant failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the supplier of raw material had supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of the decisions of larger bench in the case of Jay Yushin and Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd we do not find any merits in the plea of the appellants in respect of availability of alternate scheme or limitation. 6.1 Since appellants have short paid the Central Excise duty, interest is demandable from them under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue with regards to statutory levy of interest is no longer res integra. Bombay High Court has in case of Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Padmashri V.V. Patil Sahakari [2007 (215) ELT 23 Bom] has held as follows: "10. So far as interest Under Section 11AB is concerned, on reference to text of Section 11AB, it is evident that there is no discretion regarding the rate of interest. Language of Section 11AB(1) is clear. The interest has to be at the rate not below 10% and not exceeding 36% p.a. The actual rate of interest applicable from time to time by fluctuations between 10% to 36% is as determined by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette from time to time. There would be discretion, if at all the same is incorporated in such notification in the gazette by which rates of interest chargeable Under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscretion in the matter. One of us (Aftab Alam, J.) was a party to the decision in Dharamendra Textile and we see no reason to understand or read that decision in that manner. In Dharamendra Textile the court framed the issues before it, in paragraph 2 of the decision, as follows : "2. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the controversy involved in these appeals to a larger Bench doubting the correctness of the view expressed in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. [2007 (8) SCALE 304]. The question which arises for determination in all these appeals is whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the "Act') inserted by Finance Act, 1996 with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who evaded payment of tax should be read to contain mens rea as an essential ingredient and whether there is a scope for levying penalty below the prescribed minimum. Before the Division Bench, stand of the revenue was that said section should be read as penalty for statutory offence and the authority imposing penalty has no discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty and the adjudicating authority in such cases was duty bound....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO there is no reference to any mens rea as in section 11AC where mens rea is prescribed statutorily. This is clear from the extended period of limitation permissible under Section 11A of the Act. It is in essence submitted that the penalty is for statutory offence. It is pointed out that the proviso to Section 11A deals with the time for initiation of action. Section 11AC is only a mechanism for computation and the quantum of penalty. It is stated that the consequences of fraud etc. relate to the extended period of limitation and the onus is on the revenue to establish that the extended period of limitation is applicable. Once that hurdle is crossed by the revenue, the assessee is exposed to penalty and the quantum of penalty is fixed. It is pointed out that even if in some statues mens rea is specifically provided for, so is the limit or imposition of penalty, that is the maximum fixed or the quantum has to be between two limits fixed. In the cases at hand, there is no variable and, therefore, no discretion. It is pointed out that prior to insertion of Section 11AC, Rule 173Q was in vogue in which no mens rea was provided for. It only stated "which he knows....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to whether the documents supplied by the principal manufacturers are in the shape of drawings and designs or the same are merely instruction sheets providing guidance to the appellants as to how the final products are to be manufactured. Secondly whether the cost of the same is required to be added in the assessable value of the goods, when the same have been sold on transaction value. Further as to whether the entire exercise is revenue neutral, in which case the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellants. 13. On going through the order proposed by learned Member(Technical), I find that copies of the alleged drawings and designs supplied by the customers stand annexed with the said orders. Learned Brother has concluded that inasmuch as the customers have themselves termed the said documents as drawings given to the vendors, it has to be held as the same are designs and drawings, the value of which is required to be added in the assessable value. However, on going through the same, I find that the same are in the nature of drawings, which are primarily the instructions given by the customers. A careful reading of the purpose for which the same stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries [2018 (360) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)] has observed that there is virtually no difference between the erstwhile provisions of section 4 and the amended provisions of section 4 w.e.f. 01.07.2000, I note that the new section 4 refers to the assessable value as the transaction value entered into between the manufacturer and their customers. Admittedly the appellants have paid duty on the transaction value, which reflected the correct value of the goods, as agreed upon by both the sides. The provisions of rule 6 of the new Valuation Rules, referred to by learned Brother, according to me, are not applicable inasmuch as there is no additional flow of money from the customers to the assessee. The simple instructions as to how the goods have to be manufactured by the appellant cannot be held to be carrying any money value so as to add the same in the assessable value of the product. Accordingly I hold that the value of the said instructions was not required to be added in the assessable value of the final product. 15. Even considering that the said documents were of any money value, the same could still not be added in the assessable valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no credit of duty not paid or less paid would be available is not appreciable. The revenue neutral situation has to be examined in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case. Admittedly in a case of clandestine removal or mala fide evasion of duty, the plea of revenue neutrality would not be acceptable. But in a given case where the goods were being cleared on payment of duty of Rs.X and if such duty paid is being availed as a credit by the customers, then the Revenue's contention that the duty paid should have been Rs.X + 1/-, there cannot be any denial of the fact that the said Rs.X +1/- would be available as a credit to the customer. As such I observe that the entire situation is revenue neutral. Apart from the fact I also find that admittedly the appellant was manufacturing the said goods on job-work basis for their customers. No doubt that the appellants have chosen to pay duty on the said final product with the availability of credit of duty so paid to their customers, but if they would have followed the option for manufacture of goods on job-work basis, no duty was required to be paid by them. Merely because the appellants have not adopted the said procedure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds observed that the appellant has not gained anything, by paying less amount of duty (if presumed) and nothing has moneytarily gone into their pocket, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide intention on their part so as to evade payment of duty. In the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, produced by the Revenue, upon whom the onus lies, the invocation of extended period of limitation is neither justified nor warranted. As such the confirmation of demands beyond the period of limitation or the imposition of penalties upon the assesses are not justified. The same are accordingly set aside. In a nutshell the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed. (ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) DIFFERENCE of OPINION In view of the foregoing, the following points of difference emerge. (i) As to whether the documents supplied by the appellants' customers have to be treated as design and drawings, as held by Member(Technical) or the same are in the nature of instructions as held by Member(Judicial) ? (ii) Whether the filing of the said documents has to be added in the assessable value of the final product manufactured by the appellants or not ? (iii) As t....