2017 (10) TMI 119 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - it was found that Shri Yunus and Kasim was the labourer are not the manufacturer - Held that - as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 duty is to be demanded from the manufacturer of excisable goods - In this case, Revenue has failed to ascertain who is the manufacturer of the impugned goods. By filing these appeals, it reveals that Revenue wants demand duty from all the respondents, whereas duty is to be demanded from the manufacturer only and that could be only one person not all person - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against duty demand from respondents

Analysis:
The case involved the Revenue's appeal against an order demanding duty from the respondents for their involvement in manufacturing Gutkha. The Revenue visited a location where two individuals, Yunus and Kasim, were found engaged in manufacturing Gutkha. Various items related to Gutkha production were seized during the raid. Statements from the individuals and others involved were recorded. The adjudication found that Yunus and Kasim were laborers, not manufacturers, and dropped proceedings against Sanjay Agarwal due to lack of evidence. Duty was held payable on the seized goods, but the adjudication did not demand duty from all respondents. Penalties were imposed on Yunus and Kasim, not on Sanjay Agarwal. The Revenue appealed, arguing for duty to be demanded jointly and severally from all respondents.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates duty to be demanded from the manufacturer of excisable goods. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to ascertain the actual manufacturer of the goods in question. The Revenue sought to demand duty from all respondents jointly and severally, contrary to the law's requirement that duty be demanded from the manufacturer only, who can be only one person. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's approach of demanding duty from all respondents collectively was not in line with the legal mandate.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, concluding that there were no merits in demanding duty jointly and severally from all respondents. The appeals were consequently dismissed, upholding the principle that duty should be demanded from the actual manufacturer in accordance with the Central Excise Act, 1944.