2018 (3) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 214/86-CE - denial on the ground that the principal manufacturer L&T has not given a declaration under N/N. 214/86-CE as required for sending the goods to the appellant as job worker - Held that - There is no dispute that the raw material sent by L&T to the appellant were converted as per the arrangement between the assessees and L that the job worked goods returned back to L&T were used further by the latter; that duty was paid on the final goods cleared by L&T - non-filing of declaration for the purposes of availing N/N. 214/86-CE benefit, is only a curable defect and demand of duty only for that reason is an overkill - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether non-compliance with the requirement of submitting a declaration under Notification No.214/86-CE by the principal manufacturer renders the job worker liable to discharge duty liability.
2. Whether the absence of the declaration under the notification should result in the denial of notification benefits despite compliance with other substantial requirements.
3. The significance of filing a declaration under notifications as a substantial requirement and its impact on duty liability.
4. The relevance of case laws in determining the outcome of the appeal regarding duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant.
5. The Tribunal's analysis of the facts, submissions, and case laws presented by both parties to reach a decision on the appeal.

Issue 1 - Duty Liability and Non-Compliance:
The case involved a dispute where the department contended that the job worker would be required to discharge duty liability for goods sent by the principal manufacturer without submitting the necessary declaration under Notification No.214/86-CE. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalty, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2 - Denial of Notification Benefits:
The appellant argued that non-submission of the declaration under the notification by the principal manufacturer should not result in denial of the notification benefits if other substantial requirements were met. The appellant cited instances where they complied with the exemption notification and informed the Range Officer about their activities for the principal manufacturer.

Issue 3 - Filing of Declaration and Duty Liability:
The respondent emphasized that the declaration under Notification No.214/86-CE is a substantial requirement, and failure to comply would lead to duty liability for the job worker. Case laws were cited to highlight the importance of filing such declarations as more than just procedural formalities.

Issue 4 - Case Laws and Legal Precedents:
Both parties relied on various case laws to support their arguments. The appellant cited cases where delay in filing declarations did not result in demands, while the respondent referenced judgments emphasizing the significance of filing declarations for availing benefits and determining duty liability.

Issue 5 - Tribunal's Decision and Analysis:
After considering the submissions, facts, and case laws presented by both sides, the Tribunal found that the non-filing of the declaration should not negate the benefits allowed by the notification, especially when other procedural requirements were met, and there was no diversion or misuse of goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the demand for duty solely based on the non-filing of the declaration was excessive and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law.