Page 214 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

604 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

have not sold the goods to the job worker even though the job worker issued a
sale invoices i.e. only in respect of their raw material and job charges.
3. As regard, the imported goods in question supplied by the appellant
to the job worker the value of the processed goods to the extent it represent the
cost of imported inputs supplied by the appellant was reduced in the job work-
er’s sale invoice, therefore, this clearly shows that the imported goods i.e. Beta
Napthol was neither sold by the appellant to the job worker nor the same was
purchased back by the appellant from the job worker. He submits that in case of
job work the goods is neither sold nor transferred otherwise, therefore, the condi-
tion of the notification has not been contravened. He further submits that the
same transaction was held as job work by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their
own case vide order dated 21-9-2011 and the said order was accepted by the
Revenue, therefore, the nature of the transaction as job work has been endorsed
by the department. He further submits that in the appellant’s own case under the
same nature of transaction where the job worker has cleared the job work goods
on payment of duty, the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case reported as M/s. Aries Dye
Chem Industries - 2010 (257) E.L.T. 113 (Tri. - Ahmd.) endorsed that the transac-
tion is of job work. This decision of the Tribunal was held by the Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court in Tax Appeal No. 874/2010 [2014 (299) E.L.T. A88 (Guj.)] filed by
the Revenue vide order, dated 19-6-2012, therefore, there is no doubt that the
transaction in the present case is not of sale but of only job work. In support of
his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments :-
• Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 294 (Tri.)
• Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)
• Tetra Pak (I) Ltd. - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 257 (Tri.-Mumbai)
• Somaiya Organo Chem - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 130 (Tri.-Mumbai)
4. Shri D.K. Kanjani, Learned Superintendent, Authorized Representa-
tive appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned
order. He submits that since the job worker has issued sale invoices wherein Ex-
cise duty and VAT were paid, the transaction is clearly of sale and purchase
therefore, there is contravention of the condition of Notification No. 93/2004-
Cus., dated 10-9-2004 and Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., dated 8-4-2005. Accord-
ingly the duty was rightly demanded. He placed reliance on the following judg-
ments :-
• Collector of C.E v. Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. - 1988 (37) E.L.T.
294 (Tribunal)
• Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)
5. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that
the limited issue in the present case is that whether the transaction of supply of
imported Beta Napthol to the job worker and received back Gamma Acid after
job work is amount to sale of imported goods or otherwise to the job worker and
consequently whether the appellant is entitled for exemption under Notification
No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 and Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., dated 8-4-
2005 issued under Advance Authorization Scheme and/or Target Plus Scheme.
6. From the facts of the case, we find that the appellant removed Beta
Napthol to their job workers under cover of Annexure-II challan. As per the said
challan the goods supplied for job work is returnable in the form of processed
goods i.e. Gamma Acid. From the said Annexure-II challan, it is clear that the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  214