2009 (8) TMI 925 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, in the 2009 (8) TMI 925 case, heard an appeal in which the appellant, a job worker, sought leniency in penalty and interest for processing decotising and calendaring on behalf of a manufacturer. The appellant argued that the manufacturer should be responsible for non-payment of duty. The Department contended that the job worker was the actual manufacturer, and the appellant had already paid the duty liability. The Tribunal found that no manufacturer had undertaken the duty liability, making it the appellant's responsibility to pay duty on the goods. Despite the duty being paid before the show cause notice, the Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court decision, ruled that no reduction in penalty or interest could be allowed in cases of suppression and clearance without payment of duty. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced and dictated in open court.