2007 (11) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Assessee procured various parts for erection of power plant (non-conventional energy system) from different manufacturers revenue noticed that the parts procured by assessee are not entitled for exemption it shows that manufacturers who supplied these parts are liable for payment of duty - liability is clearly on the manufacturer & not on the person who receives the goods revenue has recover duty from seller(manufacturer) hence revenue can t proceed against assessee to collect duty twice

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. dated 1-3-2001 for agricultural waste conversion device parts.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the entitlement of exemption under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. dated 1-3-2001 for parts procured for the erection of a power project. The Respondents, a company intending to avail the exemption, undertook the construction of a power project using agricultural waste as fuel. The Central Excise authorities issued CT-2 certificates for the project, and the parts were procured duty-free. However, the Department contended that the parts were not entitled to exemption as they were not captively used for the energy device's erection. A Show Cause Notice was issued, and the Adjudicating Authority initially dropped the proceedings. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the parts were not entitled to exemption if cleared to another unit, citing a Tribunal decision. The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that they followed the rules diligently and that duty liability should fall on the manufacturers, not them.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the situation and found that the parts supplied by manufacturers were indeed not entitled to exemption as per the Notification. However, the liability for duty payment rested with the manufacturers, not the recipients. It emphasized that any manufacturer clearing goods is liable to pay duty unless exempted. As the parts were not entitled to exemption, the duty recovery should be from the manufacturers. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had already taken action against the suppliers and recovered dues from them. Therefore, it concluded that duty cannot be recovered from the Respondents and upheld the order of the Commissioner, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that duty cannot be levied twice on the same goods and that the legal principle dictates duty recovery from the manufacturers, not the recipients.

In summary, the Tribunal clarified that while the parts procured by the Respondents were not entitled to exemption, the duty liability falls on the manufacturers, not the recipients. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that duty recovery should be from the suppliers and not the Respondents. The decision underscored the legal principle that duty payment obligation lies with the manufacturers unless specifically exempted, and duty cannot be recovered twice on the same goods.