TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....944 ( CEA). 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of parts of Motor Vehicle & Speedometer, parts of Power-Driven Pumps, parts of Textile Machinery & parts of Press Tools. During the course of verification of the accounts of the appellant, it was found that apart from sale of their own manufactured products, they also sold goods which were manufactured by them on Job-work basis. In respect of such sales materials have been supplied by the principals and after completion of the works the same are sold to the principals by charging only labour bills. With the introduction of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (CEV Rules), the job work valuation has to be done as prescribed thereunder. The present case falls under the third category of the Rule ibid as the goods received from the job workers are further used in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles, pumps, machineries etc and valuation has to be done as per Rule 6 of CEV Rules. Further, it was also found that neither the appellant nor the principals have followed the procedures prescribed for availing exemption under Notification No. 214/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities ie adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Further there is no word about the classification of goods. iv. that the learned appellate authority simply held that the adjudicating authority had held that it is manufacturing of parts of Motor Vehicle & speedometer parts, Parts of PD pumps, parts of textile machinery etc. When the appellant has raised a specific ground that the activity doesn't amount to manufacture, appellate authority ought to have rendered his independent findings. In this case there is no evidence brought on record by the department to say that the job work activity amounts to manufacture. It is a settled law that the onus is on the department to demand duty on the ground that the activity amounts to manufacture, which was not discharged in this case. v. that without addressing the main issue,i.e., whether job work activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture or not, both the authorities simply held that provisions of Rule 10(A) read with Rule of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules. 2000 will apply and valuation has to be in accordance with this Rule 6 vi. th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Central Excise. Thiruvananthapuram-2007(215) ELT 434 (Tn. Chennai) b) Salem Weld Mesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2007 (218) ELT 405 (Tri.Chennai) c) Tufail Ahmed Vs. Collector of Central Excise-1992 (62) ELT 745 (Tribunal LB) d) Delhi Paper Products Co. Vs. Collector of C Ex., New Delhi-2000 (125) ELT 661 (Tribunal) This decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court and reported in 2001 (127) ELT A 107 SC (e) Commr of C.Ex, Jaipur-II Vs Ranjan Polyster Ltd -2016 (344) 257 viii. that, non filing of declaration is only a procedural issue for which substantial benefit cannot be denied as held by the Apex Court in the Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs deputy commissioner 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC). ix. that, in the absence of any suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty extended period cannot be invoked and also equal penalty cannot be imposed on them. The appellate authority has not rendered any reason for upholding the imposition of equal penalty. Hence the impugned order is a non speaking order. x. that, without prejudice, in the alternate, it is sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot lead to any automatic assumption that the job worked goods are also such parts as the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the appellant has indeed manufactured dutiable goods. Rather, we note that the Adjudicating Authority as well as the appellate authority, while rendering a finding stating that the present case falls under the third category of Rule 10A of the CEV Rules, tacitly concede that the goods received from the job workers (i.e. the appellant) are further used in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles, pumps, machineries etc., thus lending credence to the appellant's aforesaid rebuttal of the allegations in the show cause notice, namely, that the processed goods are only in the semi-finished stage and the same cannot be marketed as such and that on receipt of semi- finished goods, the customer subjected them into further process and assembled in their final product and cleared on payment of duty. We note that the Honourable High Court of Bombay in the case of Annapurna Engineering Corpn v ACCE, Div-I Nagpur, 2011 (22) STR 577 (Bom) has held that failure to pass a reasoned order resulted in miscarriage of justice. While we would have ordinarily remitted the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the appellants' factory to the effect that the goods would be removed (by the raw material-supplier) on payment of duty for home consumption. The demand of duty is consequential to non-fulfillment of this condition. The appellants have resisted the demand of duty on the ground that it was for the raw material-supplier to comply with the said condition. It is their further case that the department could have recovered duty on the subject goods from M/s. Vijay Detergent Products (P) Ltd. on the ground of non-fulfillment of the said condition. We find that the Tribunal's decision in Aggarwal Rolling Mills (supra) supports this case of the appellants. No binding decision to the contrary was cited by the DR. 4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed." (emphasis supplied). 9. A similar view is seen stated in the decision of this Tribunal in Salem Weld Mesh v CCE, Salem, 2007 (218) ELT 405 (Tri-Chennai), wherein it was held that " In the circumstances, it would be grossly unjust to deny the benefit of the Notification to the appellants on the ground of non-produc....