2017 (11) TMI 1287 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - case of Revenue is that DTPL is to be considered the manufacturer since they have supplied the required raw materials and packing materials to job workers for manufacture of CFL on their account. Such CFLs manufactured have subsequently been sold to buyers. Hence, DTPL is liable for payment of excise duty on the same - Held that - From the statements recorded from various persons such as Supervisors working at the various premises were manufacture of CFL was found to be taking place, reveals that they were paid employees receiving salary from the DTPL. It is also confirmed from the record that raw materials as well as packing materials bearing the brand names were supplied by DTPL which were used for manufacture and packing of CFL at the various premises - it is evident that DTPL is to be considered as manufacturer of the CFL made at the various premises - Accordingly, DTPL will be liable for payment of duty on the quantity manufactured at the various premises - demand upheld. SSI exemption - brand names - N/N. 8/2006 - Held that - The SSI notification specifically denies the benefit of the notification to goods cleared bearing the brand name of other persons. The appellant has nowhere claimed that the brand names affixed on the CFL cleared by them were belonging to them. The brand names itself suggest that they belong to somebody else - appellant not entitled to SSI benefit. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and duty demand on clandestine clearance.
2. Denial of SSI exemption benefit and liability for excise duty.
3. Duty demand on goods seized at buyer's premises.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding cross-examination.

Issue 1: Confiscation of seized goods and duty demand on clandestine clearance:
The case involved M/s Devinod Trade Pvt. Limited (DTPL) manufacturing Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The central excise officers conducted searches due to suspicions of duty evasion and lack of registration. Seized goods led to a show cause notice proposing confiscation and duty demand. The Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting appeals challenging the decision. The appellant argued against inflated demands, lack of evidence supply, and denial of natural justice principles.

Issue 2: Denial of SSI exemption benefit and liability for excise duty:
The Revenue contended that DTPL, supplying raw materials and overseeing CFL manufacturing, was liable for excise duty. The definition of "manufacturer" under Central Excise Act was crucial, establishing DTPL's liability for duty payment. The appellant's claim for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption was denied due to goods bearing other brand names, making them ineligible for the benefit.

Issue 3: Duty demand on goods seized at buyer's premises:
Goods found at the buyer's premises led to a duty demand, contested by the appellant as potentially duplicative of the total quantity already considered for duty calculation. The appellant's argument regarding lack of access to relied-upon documents was dismissed by the adjudicating authority, leading to the rejection of this ground for appeal.

Issue 4: Violation of principles of natural justice regarding cross-examination:
The appellant raised concerns about the denial of cross-examination of witnesses, alleging a violation of natural justice. However, as the request for cross-examination was not made before the adjudicating authority, this ground was deemed untenable, leading to no interference with the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing all appeals on 16.11.2017, based on detailed considerations of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties.

← Previous Next →