2024 (3) TMI 1227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Auto Limited (SAL); the appellant procures aluminum ingots from the manufacturers, like M/s Sharma Alloys Private Limited, Faridabad; Century Metal Recycling (P) Ltd, Palwal, as identified by their customer, under the cover of invoices directly from them and avail CENVAT credit of the same; as per the arrangement between the appellant and M/s SAL, M/s SAL pays to the manufacturers of Ingots, against the supplies made to the appellant. On the basis of an audit conducted on the records of the appellant, it appeared to the department that the appellants are job workers of M/s SAL; as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods), Rules 2000 or CEVR, 2000 and therefore, Central Excise duty on the brak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....brake shoes to M/s SAL was as per section 4(1) (a) of Central Excise, Act 1944 and as it was not established that the appellant and SAL are related persons, taking recourse to CEVR, 2000 was not warranted. Commissioner's reliance on Audi Auto Mobiles 2010(249) ELT 124(T); Eicher Motors Ltd 2008(228) ELT 43 (Tri -LB) and Steel Complex Ltd 2005(180) ELT 137 (SC) in the impugned order is misplaced as the facts of the cases were not comparable. He submits that four show cause notices, issued by the department on the very same issue, for the subsequent periods i.e. September, 2011 to December 2014, to the appellants were dropped by Commissioner (appeals), vide order dated 29.06.2016; they have changed the practice of routing the payment for raw ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted the correspondence between them and M/s SAL, which indicates that though M/s SAL are making payments to the suppliers of ingots, the same is but on behalf of, the appellants, by debiting to the account of the appellants. It is seen that this is only a financial arrangement and it in itself does not render the appellants to be the job-workers of M/s SAL. 8. We further find that, there is no indication either in the orders placed by M/s SAL on the appellants or in the invoices issued by the appellants to M/s SAL, that the whole arrangement is of any job-work. We find force in the argument of appellants that in case they were performing only the job-work for M/s SAL, there was no need to recover full value of Brake Shoes in place of m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4. As per Rule 3 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as "Valuation Rules"), the valuation under Rule 10A is done under the provisions of Section 4 (1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The aforesaid Section 4(1)(b) comes into the picture only and only when the valuation under Section 4(1)(a) is not applicable. I reiterate that the Adjudicating Authority has not bothered to write even a single word to show as to why the above-mentioned Section 4 (1)(a) is not applicable in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Saci Allied Vs CC1: [2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC)] has held that "Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable only when Section 4(1)(a) ....