Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Glamour Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.E/85125/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.88/NG/Commr/Th-II/2012 dated 16/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Glamour Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Thane-II Appearance:
Shri.Mehul Jivani, CA for appellant Dr.B.S.Meena, Addl. Comm. (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 21/05/2014 Date of Decision : 21/05/2014 ORDER NO Per: P.R.Chandrasekharan
1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.88/NG/Commr/Th-II/2012 dated 16/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II.
2. Vide the impugned order, a duty demand of Rs.64,98,258/- has been confirmed against the appellant, M/s.Glamour Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd., along with interest thereon and imposing a fine of Rs.1.00 crore and a penalty of Rs.40,24,707/- under Rule 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
3. The appellant is a job-worker for M/s.Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. and manufactures tin containers from the raw-materials supplied by M/s.Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. They have discharged the excise duty liability on the said goods on the basis of Ujagar Prints formula. M/s.Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. uses these tins for packing the products manufactured by them. Therefore, the department was of the view that the assessable value should have been determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 on the basis of 110% of the cost of production. Accordingly, notices were issued and demands confirmed.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Rolaster Pvt. Ltd. -2012-TIOL-23-CESTAT-BANG affirmed by the Honble Apex Court in the same case reported in 2013-TIOL-07-SC-CX. In the said case, the question of consideration was whether Rule 10A or 8 of the Valuation Rules would apply in respect of job-worked goods, which are captively consumed by the supplier of the raw materials. It was held that when the job-worked goods are cleared back to the principal manufacturer and the said goods are captively consumed by the principal manufacturer, there is no applicability of Rule 8 or Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules and the duty liability has to be discharged on the cost of raw materials plus job charges including the profit of the job-worker. In the present case, the appellant has discharged the duty liability accordingly and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, he pleads for allowing the appeal.
5. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
6.1 As held by the co-ordinate Bench at Ahmedabad in the case cited supra, Rule 8 or Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules would not apply to the facts of the present case as the principal manufacturer has captively consumed the job-worked goods supplied. Since there is no sale, the value of the goods has to be arrived at as per Ujagar Prints formula laid down by the Honble Apex Court on the basis of the cost of raw materials plus job charges including the profit of the job-worker. There is no dispute that the appellant has discharged the duty liability accordingly.
7. In view of the above position, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 1 4