TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principal-to-principal basis; the appellants used the raw material purchased by them but conforming to the specifications given by the buyers and from the moulds supplied by the buyers; the appellants cleared the manufactured furniture to M/s Nilkamal Limited; the department was of the opinion that the appellants were job workers of M/s Nilkamal Limited as such they were required to pay duty on the sales price of M/s Nilkamal Limited at their depots; two show cause notices dated 23.12.2010 and 27.01.2011 covering the period 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2009 and 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2010 were issued; the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II by a common order dated 30.03.2012 confirmed the demand after allowing cum duty benefit/ imposing penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Departmental Officers. She submits that in view of the same, the demands and penalties imposed on the appellants are liable to be set aside. 3. Shri Manoj Nayyar, Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 are clear in defining the 'job worker' and in view of the definition of 'job worker' under Rule 10A, the appellants are liable to pay duty at the value on which goods were cleared by M/s Nilkamal Limited at their depots. He submits that the contention of the appellants that the demands dropped in their own case for the subsequent period by the lower authorities were accepted by the Department, is par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacturer. The crux of the definition of job worker is in the use of inputs supplied by the principal manufacturer. It is a common understanding that a job worker is the one who works upon the goods supplied directly or indirectly by the principal manufacturer. This fact is totally missing in this case; neither from the terms of contract nor from the show cause notices, it is inferred that the goods are supplied by M/s Nilkamal Limited; therefore, the appellants do not fit into the definition of 'job worker' even for the purpose of Rule 10A. On this contest, we find that the demand is not sustainable. We find that the adjudicating authority while deciding the appellants' own case vide order dated 21.12.2012 for the period October, 2010 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the definition given in Rule 10A is only relevant here. The question is whether the scope of the definition of job worker given in Rule 10A is something different from that given elsewhere and can cases of supply of moulds alone without supplying any material out of which the goods are to be manufactured, will also come under job work for the purpose of Rule 10A. I do not think so because though supply of "any inputs or goods" is mentioned in the explanation of the job worker in the Rule, such inputs or goods should be those "from" which the final goods are manufactured. The usage of the word "from" instead of expressions such as "using" or "with the help of" etc clearly shows that the term "inputs or goods" mentioned cover only the raw mat....