2011 (4) TMI 439 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No.214/86 - job worker - Whether the benefit of Notification No.214/86 of clearing the goods manufactured by them on job work basis, without payment of duty is available to the respondent in view of amendment dt.9.7.04 carried out in the said Notification fide Notification No.26/2004-CE - Find that the respondents are manufacturing Polyester Texturised Yarn and not Polyester filament yarn - Polyester Texturised Yarn and Polyester filament yarn are technically two different commodities and not one and are known differently in trade - Therefore, exclusion of Polyester filament yarn does not mean that Polyester Texturised Yarn has also been excluded from the ambit of Notification No.214/1986 - Find that the benefit of Notification No.214/19866-CE, dt.25.3.86 as amended vide Notification No.26/2004-CE, dt.9.7.04 is available to the respondent - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.214/1986-CE and subsequent amendments.
2. Liability of duty payment for job worker manufacturing polyester texturised yarn.
3. Application of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in job work scenario.
4. Discrepancy between Polyester filament yarn and Polyester texturised yarn for duty exemption.
5. Revenue neutrality in inter-unit transactions.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a job worker manufacturing polyester texturised yarn, sought appeal on the basis of written submissions. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No.214/1986-CE and subsequent amendments. The Department contended that post-amendment, Polyester filament yarn could not be cleared by a job worker without duty payment, leading to duty demand on the appellant.

2. The appellant, as a job worker, received raw materials under prescribed challan, manufactured final products, and returned them to the principal manufacturer without availing CENVAT Credit or paying duty. The principal manufacturer availed CENVAT Credit and paid duty on finished goods. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant, resulting in the impugned order confirming duty and imposing a penalty.

3. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision, establishing that the procedure under Notification No.214/1986 and Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules were similar. It was noted that the principal had paid duty on finished products, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of an amendment excluding Polyester texturised yarn from the procedure, the clearance could not be deemed irregular.

4. The appellant relied on a Commissioner(Appeals) order, highlighting the distinction between Polyester filament yarn and Polyester texturised yarn. The Commissioner's order clarified that the benefit of the notification for duty exemption applied to Polyester texturised yarn despite the exclusion of Polyester filament yarn. This distinction ensured that the appellant could avail the benefit of the notification, maintaining revenue neutrality in inter-unit transactions.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and rules, ensuring compliance with duty payment obligations and CENVAT Credit provisions in the job work scenario.