2014 (11) TMI 959 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of circular No. 306/22/97-CX, dated 20-3-2007 - Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 - Held that - There are findings of fact recorded by the authorities that there was no evidence to show that the job worked goods were used in manufactured duty paid goods. In the absence of any such evidence there was no possibility of extending the benefit of circular dated 25-3-1986 to the appellant. No substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of circular No. 306/22/97-CX dated 20-3-2007.
2. Claim of exemption for job workers under Notification No. 21486-C.E. dated 25-3-1986.
3. Extending the benefit of circular dated 20-3-1997 to the appellant.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Benefit of Circular No. 306/22/97-CX dated 20-3-2007:
The appellant sought to quash the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, which held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of circular No. 306/22/97-CX dated 20-3-2007. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the finished goods had already incurred duty, as required by the circular. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular stated the duty liability is on the manufacturer of final goods, not the job worker. It was held that the circular could not be applied retrospectively, and as the appellant operated in 1993-94, the benefit of the circular could not be extended. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for the benefit of the circular was unfounded, as there was no evidence to support the duty payment on the finished goods.

Issue 2: Claim of Exemption for Job Workers under Notification No. 21486-C.E. dated 25-3-1986:
The appellant also claimed exemption for job workers under Notification No. 21486-C.E. dated 25-3-1986. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions of the notification, particularly the requirement for the ultimate manufacturer to discharge the liability of the job worked goods. As the appellant could not establish that the duty had been paid on the goods, the claim under the notification was negated. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's assertion that the goods were not liable to duty based on Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules was unsubstantiated due to the lack of evidence showing the duty payment on the finished goods.

Issue 3: Extending the Benefit of Circular Dated 20-3-1997 to the Appellant:
The appellant argued for the extension of the benefit of the circular dated 20-3-1997. However, the Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that the circular's provisions did not apply to the appellant's situation. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular focused on duty liability and not Cenvat Credit, and it could not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment to support its position that legislative intentions conveyed from a specified date could not have a retrospective effect. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds for extending the benefit of the circular to the appellant and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for determination by the Court.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal as without merit, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of duty payment on the finished goods and did not meet the conditions for exemption under the relevant notifications and circulars.

← Previous Next →