TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with Shri Aditya Jain, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant Shri P.K. Acharya, Superintendent, Authorized Representative for the Respondent PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.19/SPM/ADC/CEX/2009dated 16.09.2009 by the impugned order following has been held:- 16. Thus, it is clear that in cases where the job-worker and the manufacturer are follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettled, that the duty liability of the processed goods is to be discharged by the job-worker and not by the Principal manufacturer, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of General Engineering Wroks and Lloyds Steel Industries become Guidelines for determining the correct assessable value of the said goods. 19. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to conclude that in this ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the job charges charged. 2.2 Accordingly show cause notice dated 28.11.2008 was issued to the appellant confirmed by Order-in-Original dated 16.09.2009 which has been upheld by the impugned order. 2.3 Hence this appeal. 3.1 Heard Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate and ShriAditya Jain Chartered Accountant, for the appellant and Shri P.K. Acharya, Superintendent,AR for the Revenue. 4.1 We have conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was the principal manufacturer. Therefore, the provision of sub-rules (i) & (ii) of Rule 10A is clearly attracted. Only in a case where the sub-rules (i) & (ii) are not attracted, the transaction can be covered to sub-rule (iii) of Rule 10(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned demand in respect of the transaction pertaining to M/s. SAIL. 5.3 As regards the transaction pertaining to ....