2017 (8) TMI 214 - AT - Central Excise

Job-work - N/N. 214/86 dated 25.03.1986 - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - M/s RIBL who is located at parwanoo in the state of Himachal Pradesh have filed an undertaking in terms of N/N. 214/86 dated 25.03.1986 before the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over M/s Triveni and sent the raw material to M/s Triveni who after doing job work cleared the plastic bottles to M/s RIBL without payment of duty - Whether duty be demanded from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni or not? - Held that - we do not find any provision in Central Excise law to demand duty from M/s RIBL through the job work - demand set aside. Whether The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak is having jurisdiction to issue SCN? - Held that - the show cause notice has been issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak, who is not having jurisdiction over M/s RIBL. Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable or not? - Held that - As the demand is not sustainable on merits as well as on jurisdiction. Therefore, we are not going into the issue of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether duty can be demanded from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni
- Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak to issue show cause notice
- Applicability of the extended period of limitation

Issue I:
The Tribunal found that there is no provision in Central Excise law to demand duty from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni. Relying on a previous case, it was held that duty should be demanded directly from M/s RIBL. Therefore, the impugned order lacked merit in demanding duty from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni, leading to the demand being set aside.

Issue II:
The Tribunal determined that the show cause notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak, who lacked jurisdiction over M/s RIBL. Citing a previous case, it was established that the Proper Officer having jurisdiction over the factory of the Appellants should demand duty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction, leading to the impugned order being set aside.

Issue III:
Given the findings on the lack of merit in demanding duty from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni and the issue of jurisdiction, the Tribunal did not delve into the matter of limitation. As the demand was deemed unsustainable on both merit and jurisdiction, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for demanding duty from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni, the importance of jurisdiction in issuing show cause notices, and the consequent setting aside of the impugned order due to these factors.