2013 (9) TMI 839 - AT - Central Excise

Job work - declaration under form 57F(4) - goods manufactured by job worker under notification no. 214/86 was cleared by the appellants at NIL rate of duty under SSI exemption notification - Held that - Once the Revenue took a view that the inputs could not have been sent to a job worker under Notification No. 214/86 and the process undertaken by the job worker amounted to manufacture and resulted in final products namely, re-rolled products, the duty liability would fall on the manufacturer who is a job worker in this case and not on the appellant. Further no doubt, the steel ingots manufactured by the appellant were liable to duty as small scale exemption was not available during the relevant period. However, it has to be noted that the duty demand is on the re-rolled products and not on the steel ingots. The department should have either demanded duty on the steel ingots sent out for the job work or on the re-rolled products from the job worker. Since duty demand has been made on re-rolled products and the appellant is not a manufacturer of the same, the demand is not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Applicability of small scale exemption Notification No. 16/97 for clearance of re-rolled products.
2. Correct notification for seeking exemption for goods received after job work.
3. Liability of duty on ingots sent for job work.
4. Claim of duty liability on job worker.
5. Correct procedure for clearance of goods under relevant notifications.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel ingots, sending products for job work to another company and claiming small scale exemption under Notification No. 16/97 for clearance of re-rolled products. The jurisdictional authorities issued a show cause notice for non-payment of duty on the products cleared. The original authority confirmed the demand, which was also upheld in the appeal.

2. The appellant, now in liquidation, argued that the denial of concessional clearance was due to citing the incorrect notification (No. 214/86) instead of Notification No. 83/94 for seeking exemption. They claimed substantial compliance with the law and that the mistake was technical, requesting not to be penalized for the error.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that while re-rolled products were eligible for exemption, the ingots sent for job work were not covered. The appellant's choice to opt out of the Modvat facility affected the clearance under Notification No. 214/86, and Notification No. 83/94 was also deemed inapplicable as the goods received were not used in manufacturing other products.

4. The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and observed that the appellant's clearance of re-rolled products under Notification No. 214/86 at NIL rate of duty was incorrect. It was noted that the duty liability should fall on the job worker, not the appellant, as the job worker's process resulted in final products. The duty demand on re-rolled products, not on ingots, was deemed unsustainable, and the order was set aside with relief to the appellant.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the duty demand on re-rolled products was not valid as the appellant was not the manufacturer of those products. The correct procedure for duty liability was determined to be on the job worker, M/s. Palakkad Steels (P) Ltd., who undertook the manufacturing process. The appellant's mistake in citing the wrong notification was considered a technical error, and relief was granted based on the correct interpretation of the applicable notifications and duty liability.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.

← Previous Next →