2018 (1) TMI 692 - AT - Central Excise

Job work - N/N. 214/86 dated 25.03.1986 - declaration/ certificate by the principle manufacturer not filed - Held that - the appellant wants to get the exemption under N/N. 214/86. Thus, double benefit of exemption on the same raw material is not permissible especially when the appellant has manufactured the excisable goods which have the industrial market and cleared the same without payment of duty - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 21.03.2017 - Period of dispute June 2008 to 01.02.2009 - Appellant claiming exemption under Notification No. 214/86 - Non-filing of declaration by principal manufacturer - Double benefit of exemption - Duty leviable.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 21.03.2017, concerning a dispute from June 2008 to 01.02.2009. The appellant, a job worker for butyl rubber compound and semi-finished butyl rubber tubes, received raw materials from M/s Birla Tyre Limited availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003. The appellant cleared goods without paying duty, claiming exemption under Notification No. 214/86, which was denied by the department. The appellant contended that the mistake was on the principal supplier's part, citing relevant case laws to support their argument.

Upon examination, it was noted that the Notification No. 214/86 required a declaration/certificate from the principal manufacturer, which was not provided in this case. The principal manufacturer enjoyed area-based exemption without paying duty, while the appellant sought exemption under a different notification, aiming for double benefit on the same raw material. As the appellant manufactured and cleared excisable goods for the industrial market without duty payment, duty was deemed leviable. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, upholding it along with the stated reasons.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the non-compliance with notification requirements, the inadmissibility of double exemption benefits, and the duty liability for goods cleared without payment. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory conditions and the prevention of unjust enrichment through multiple exemptions on the same goods.