2013 (12) TMI 682 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement for benefit of Notification NO. 83/94 Held that - The Notification 83/94 dated 11.04.1994 is applicable to the items falling under sub-heading 8413.11, 8413.12, 8413.13 and 8413.14 of the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - the item manufactured by the appellants also does not fall under Notification 8/2000 and 9/2000 - As the Notification itself is not applicable to the items manufactured by the appellant, therefore the benefit of Notification or undertaking given by the appellant on behalf of the raw material supplier are of no use for their benefit - the demands for the normal period are payable by the appellant as the activity of job worker was in the knowledge of the department from day one, therefore no penalty is imposable on the appellant Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against confirmed demands under Notification NO. 83/94-CE dated 11.04.1994.
- Applicability of Notification 83/94 to the items manufactured by the appellants.
- Validity of the undertaking given by the raw material supplier.
- Interpretation of relevant case law in relation to the present case.
- Imposition of penalty and interest on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The appellants filed an appeal against confirmed demands under Notification NO. 83/94-CE dated 11.04.1994, contending that they were entitled to the benefit of the notification. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing brass bars and undertaking job work, obtained an undertaking from their raw material supplier as per the notification.

2. The case revolved around the applicability of Notification 83/94 to the items manufactured by the appellants, falling under CTH 7407.12. The raw material supplier undertook to use specified goods in the manufacture of excisable goods under the notification. Two show-cause notices were issued to the appellants based on the premise that the benefit of the notification was not available to them.

3. The appellants argued that since the raw material supplier undertook to pay the duty, the demand of duty against them was not sustainable. They relied on the decision in the case of Aggarwal Rolling Mills vs. CCE 1997 (93) ELT 615 to support their stance.

4. The Tribunal found that the Notification 83/94 was applicable to specific items falling under sub-heading 8413.11, 8413.12, 8413.13, and 8413.14, which did not include the items manufactured by the appellants. As the notification was not applicable to their items, the benefit or undertaking provided by the appellants was deemed irrelevant.

5. The case law cited by the appellants was deemed irrelevant to the present case. Consequently, the demands for the normal period were held payable by the appellants. However, no penalty was imposed as the department was aware of the job work activity from the beginning. The appellants were directed to pay duty and interest accordingly, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

6. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the inapplicability of Notification 83/94 to the items manufactured by the appellants, leading to the dismissal of their appeal against the confirmed demands. The decision emphasized the importance of the specific applicability of notifications and undertakings in excise matters, while also addressing penalty and interest obligations.