TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to as 1st appellant) is job worker for M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 2nd appellant) and is engaged in the manufacture of Electric Mosquito Destroyer Machine (EMD) for the second appellant. The 1st appellant manufactures these items exclusively for and on behalf of the 2nd appellant. The 1st appellant avail cenvat credit of the inputs and packing materials which are supplied by the 2nd appellant for manufacture of the finished products. The finished products were cleared by the 1st Appellant on payment of duty as calculated under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 They thus discharged duty on 110% of the cost of production as per the CAS-4 certificate. The 2nd appellant availed credit of the dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals. 4. The Ld. Counsel Shri L. Gokulraj appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the issue to be considered is whether the valuation adopted for the products cleared by the 1st appellant to 2nd appellant for the purpose of export is in accordance with law. The 1st appellant manufactured Electric Mosquito Destroyer Machine exclusively on behalf of the 2nd appellant. The goods so manufactured by the 1st appellant carry the brand name of the 2nd appellant. For the period from December 2007 to January 2009, the 1st appellant manufactured combi packs containing the EMD and the liquid refill meant for both domestic sales and export. The 2nd appellant carried out testing and repackings which amounts to 'manufacture'. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant was issued SCN by the Department alleging availment of ineligible credit on the ground that the activities undertaken by them do not amount to "manufacture". The Tribunal vide Final Order No.41251/2020 dated 18.11.2020 disposed of the said appeal holding that the 2nd appellant is eligible for credit. In the said Final Order, the plea of 2nd appellant is noted by the Tribunal that the 2nd appellant has undertaken the activity of testing, re-packing, palletization and shrink-wrapping before export of the finished products. Since such activities are undertaken at the premises of the 2nd appellant, the allegation of the Department that the goods which are cleared by the 1st appellant to the 2nd appellant are exported 'as such' and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred from the premises of the 1st appellant to the 2nd appellant are completely finished products. There is no further process of manufacture. It is prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the value adopted by the 1st appellant for payment of duty on clearance of the goods to the 2nd appellant is legal and proper. Undisputedly, the 1st appellant is the job worker of the 2nd appellant. The Ld. Counsel has pointed out that further processes of manufacture takes place at the premises of the 2nd appellant. In case of goods meant for export, the 2nd appellant undertakes testing as well as repacking of the goods. The Department has rejected this plea saying that there....