2011 (2) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Notification No.214/1986-CE, dt.25.3.86 - Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Job work - held that - the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in case of Umeshrai Vs. CCE Vapi (2009 -TMI - 75248 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) wherein the view has been taken that in case of PTY manufactured on job work basis and where the process under CENVAT Credit Rules has been followed, no duty can be demanded. - in this case also, Unit 1 has purchased Partially Oriented Yarn and sent to Unit 2 on job work basis, manufactured PTY and returned the same to Unit 1. The principal manufacturer viz. Unit 1 has cleared the goods on payment of duty. - Demand set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on Unit 2 for manufacturing finished goods not covered by Notification No.214/1986-CE.
2. Imposition of penalty and interest on Unit 2.
3. Applicability of Notification No.26/2004-CE on the manufacturing process.
4. Precedent cases involving similar issues.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding duty demand on Unit 2, a job worker, for manufacturing finished goods not covered by Notification No.214/1986-CE. Unit 1, the principal manufacturer, had availed CENVAT Credit on raw material and sent it to Unit 2 for further processing. Unit 2 neither availed CENVAT Credit nor paid duty on the final product. The Tribunal confirmed a duty demand of Rs.1,67,075 on Unit 2, citing the amendment to Notification No.214/1986-CE by Notification No.26/2004-CE.

2. In addition to the duty demand, penalty equal to duty and interest were imposed on Unit 2 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite no appearance by the appellant, written submissions contended that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the appellant by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The written submissions argued that the restriction under Notification No.26/2004-CE applied to the manufacturer of Polyester Filament Yarn and not Polyester Texturised Yarn, as supported by previous decisions. The Tribunal considered the precedent cases, including M/s Sunflag Filaments Inds. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE Daman, and held that when PTY is manufactured on a job work basis following CENVAT Credit Rules, no duty can be demanded. Unit 1 had purchased raw material, sent it to Unit 2, and cleared the goods on payment of duty, aligning with the Tribunal's previous decisions.

4. Given the similarity of the current case to precedent cases and the established legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of following established legal precedents in resolving disputes related to duty demands and manufacturing processes under relevant notifications.