9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 867 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Circular No. 306/22/97-CX. dated 20-3-1997 - Exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. dated 25-3-1986 - Held that - Circular No. 306/22/97-CX. dated 20-3-1997states that duty liability is dischargeable by manufacturer of final goods and not by job worker if the goods are received for job work under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules 1944. The Circular is subordinate to the legislative mandate incorporated in Notification. Therefore the Circular is to be read in same spirit as the law requires. When the appellant claims to be benefited from Circular the date of effect of Circular is 20-3-1997. The appellant operated for the year 1993-94 we are unable to extend the benefit claimed by appellant in terms of Circular since circular deals with no Cenvat credit enjoyable by a Job Worker where duty liability is of manufacturer - Intention of the legislature when conveyed from a specified date that cannot be read as to have retrospective effect - Following decision of C.C.E v. Sunwin Technosolution Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 for job workers' duty liability exemption. Applicability and interpretation of Circular No. 306/22/97-CX., dated 20-3-1997 in relation to job workers and manufacturers. Analysis of whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions of the Notification for duty exemption. Consideration of the legislative mandate regarding duty liability and Cenvat credit for job workers. Assessment of the appellant's claim for benefit under Circular No. 306/22/97-CX. Evaluation of the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissal of the appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant claimed exemption from duty as a job worker based on Circular No. 306/22/97-CX and Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The appellant argued that they were not liable to pay duty as the final manufacturer was responsible for it. The appellant contended that the duty levy imposed was not applicable to them. 2. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order that denied the appellant's claim for duty exemption. 3. The appellate order analyzed the appellant's case and found that the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The authority noted the lack of evidence showing that job worked goods were used in the manufacture of duty-paying goods, as required by the Notification. The authority concluded that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions for the duty exemption. 4. The authority also observed that the appellant was claiming duty exemption without substantiating their case in line with the Notification requirements, taking advantage of certain CESTAT orders. 5. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the authority's findings, stating that there was no legal flaw in the observation regarding the appellant's non-compliance with the Notification conditions for duty exemption. 6. The Tribunal examined Circular No. 306/22/97-CX, which clarified that duty liability rests with the final goods manufacturer, not the job worker. However, the Tribunal noted that the Circular could not be applied retrospectively to benefit the appellant for the period in question (1993-94). The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was about liability, not Cenvat credit, and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support its decision. 7. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not have a case in their favor and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), ultimately dismissing the appeal.
|
