Judgment J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant – assessee to make pre-deposit of Rs.50,00,000/-for entertaining the appeal filed by the assessee against the order-in-original dated 18th February 2010 is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The appeal is admitted on the above substantial question of law and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. 3. The appellant – assessee is inter alia engaged in the activity of body building at their factory on the motor vehicle chassis supplied by Tata Motors Limited. The Tata Motors manufactures the chassis fitted with engines for motor-vehicles and supplies the same to the appellant – assessee for body building on the chassis. Tata Motors has been clearing the chassis to the appellant – assessee on payment of excise duty and the cenvat credit of duty paid on such chassis is taken by the appellant – assessee. The assessee thereupon undertook the activity of body building on the chassis by utilizing various raw materials, on its own account, and on completion of the body building clears the same to Tata Motors on payment of excise duty. In determining the excise duty liability, the assessee took into consideration the cost of the raw materials procured by the appellant – assessee, the body building costs and the profits of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the transactions between the assessee and Tata Motors are on principle to principle basis and that the assessee is not an agent of Tata Motors. Therefore, according to the assessee the price at which the chassis with building activity carried thereon was sold by Tata Motors was wholly irrelevant in determining the duty liability to be discharged by the assessee. 4. With effect from 1st April 2007, Rule 10A has been inserted to the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (‘Valuation Rules’ for short). 5. Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules reads thus :- “RULE 10A. 4. With effect from 1st April 2007, Rule 10A has been inserted to the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (‘Valuation Rules’ for short). 5. Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules reads thus :- “RULE 10A. Where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a job-worker, on behalf of a person (hereinafter referred to as principal manufacturer), then, - (i) in a case where the goods are sold by the principal manufacturer for delivery at the time of removal of goods from the factory of job-worker, where the principal manufacturer and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sold consideration for the sale, the value of the excisable goods shall be the transaction value of the said goods sold by the principal manufacturer; (ii) in a case where the goods are not sold by the principal manufacturer at the time of removal of goods from the factory of the job-worker, but are transferred to some other place from where the said goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory of job-worker and where the principal manufacturer and buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value of the excisable goods shall be the normal transaction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of said goods from the factory of job-worker; (iii) in a case not covered under clause (i) or (ii), the provisions of foregoing rules, wherever applicable shall mutatis mutandis apply for determination of the value of the excisable goods : Provided that the cost of transportation, if any, from the premises, wherefrom the goods are sold, to the place of delivery shall not be included in the value of excisable goods. Explanation. For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorized by him.” 6. Explanation. For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorized by him.” 6. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule 10A clearly shows that the said rule applies where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a job-worker on behalf of the principle manufacturer and the said goods are sold by the principle manufacturer at the time of removal of goods from the factory gate of the job-worker, then, the value of the excisable goods shall be the transaction value of the goods sold by the principle manufacturer. By applying the aforesaid rule, the Excise Authorities sought to recover the differential duty from the assessee in respect of the goods already cleared on payment of duty. The assessee contended that Rule 10A is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. By an adjudication order dated 18th February 2010, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the duty demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner further held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the duty amount and imposed penalty of Rs.20,00,000/-under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 8. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant – assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT and moved an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit. By the impugned order dated 1st August 2011, the CESTAT directed the appellant – assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-for entertaining the appeal. Challenging the aforesaid order, present Appeal is filed. 9. Mr. Shridharan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that once the CESTAT has recorded a finding that the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on the activity of body building on behalf of Tata Motors, then obviously Rule 10A would not apply and in such a case, the Tribunal could not direct the appellant – assessee to make a pre-deposit of Rs.50,00,000/-merely because in an earlier proceedings the appellant – assessee had voluntarily agreed to make pre-deposit. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Rao, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue relying on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 124 submitted that the activity of body building carried on by the assessee was for on behalf of Tata Motors and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 10A was applicable to the facts of the present case and, hence, the Tribunal was justified in directing the assessee to make pre-deposit of Rs.50,00,000/-. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic dispute in the present case, is whether Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules is applicable to the facts of the present case. Rule 10A applies only in cases where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a job-worker on behalf of a person who is supplying the raw materials namely principal manufacturer. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BasantIndustries V/s. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.) has held that the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on body building activity ‘on behalf of’ Tata Motors and consequently Rule 10A has no application to the facts of the present case. Once a prima facie finding is recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the provisions of Rule 10A is not applicable to the facts of the present case, then, there would be no question of depositing the duly payable under Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal, however, directed pre-deposit by relying upon its order dated 5th August 2008 in the assessee’s own case wherein the assessee had voluntarily offered to make pre-deposit. 12. Perusal of the order of CESTAT dated 5th August 2008 clearly shows that the assessee voluntarily offered to make pre-deposit in that case, because, the issue being recurring in nature, the Tribunal would hear and disposed of the matter expeditiously. Thus, the offer made in the earlier appeal was conditional. Admittedly, in spite of making pre-deposit, the matter has not been disposed of till date and that appeal is still pending before the CESTAT. In these circumstances, instead of deciding the earlier appeal filed by the assessee expeditiously, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the assessee to make pre-deposit in the present case by relying upon its earlier order. 13. In these circumstances, instead of deciding the earlier appeal filed by the assessee expeditiously, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the assessee to make pre-deposit in the present case by relying upon its earlier order. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order of CESTAT directing deposit of Rs.50,00,000/-and direct the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. 14. We are informed that several appeals filed by the assessee as alsovarious other body builders raising similar questions are pending before the CESTAT for nearly four years. Since the issue is recurring in nature, we hope that the CESTAT endeavors to resolve the dispute expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from today. 15. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the prima facie views expressed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall dispose off the appeal on merits without being influenced by this order or the impugned order. 16. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs.