Page 142 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

468 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
34. Details of manufacturing process of the Appellant mentioning the
name, quantity and value of inputs :
To the above, the Appellant humbly submits that the details of the man-
ufacturing process formed part of the appeal (at Page no. 45-40) submitted to the
Appellate Authority. Further, vide the present submissions, the per unit cost has
also been made available to the Appellate Authority, basis which the value of
inputs can be determined.
35. Other inputs/materials, their quantity and value, being pro-
cured/purchased by the Job Worker Details of the above have been provided
vide the cost sheet enclosed herewith.
SION Norms :
36. The Appellant humbly submits that the Standard Input Output
Norms (SION), as prescribed by the Director General of Foreign Trade are for
guidance purpose to determine the standard inputs required for production of
any product. It would be grossly erroneous to seek reference to the same at the
time of examining the inputs that are used to manufacture a product. In this re-
gard, the Appellant seeks reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in
Jakap Metind Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2017 (356) E.L.T. 279 (Tri. - Mumbai)], wherein the
Tribunal has held that :
……..As far as SION is concerned it provides with the theoretical input-output
norms that too for the purpose of import and export of the goods. Even when the
imports are allowed as per the SION norms the actual consumption of the input in
the export goods is always variable as compared to the ratio provided under the
SION norms. Therefore, there is always difference between the input-output norms
given in SION and the actual input-output ratio in the physical manufacture of the
goods. Therefore, the SION norms cannot be applied in the facts of the present case.
(Emphasis Supplied)
37. Basis the above, it is evident that SION are for guidance purposes
and a sole reliance on SION cannot be placed to conclusively decide on the type
of inputs. Additionally, there are a plethora of judgments wherein credit of in-
puts has been allowed, even though the same are not mentioned under the SION
norms of the applicable products. These judgments are mentioned hereinunder :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Grasim Industries Limited [2002
(147) E.L.T. 190 (Tri. - Del.)]; Jaypee Rawa Cement v. Commissioner of Cen-
tral Excise, MP [2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]; Essar Steel Limited v. Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Surat-I [2001 (129) E.L.T. 213 (Tri. - Mum.)];
Vikram Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2006 (194) E.L.T. 3
(S.C.)]
38. In view of the various submissions made by the Appellant and the
additional submissions made herein, it is submitted that -
39. (i) Coal constitutes an input for the Principal (i.e. JSL) in the pro-
cess of generation of power;
(ii) Inputs sent to a Job Worker can be brought back with the in-
volvement of a third party, who effectively plays the role akin
to a transporter;
(iii) Air and water, provided by the Job Worker constitute a mini-
mal cost (less than 0.5%) for generation of power, as compared
to the cost of coal (more than 95%) provided by the Principal.
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  262