2005 (8) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalty imposition for not considering the value of raw materials received free of cost.
2. Applicability of Rule 57F(4) challans and duty liability on principal manufacturer.
3. Interpretation of previous judgments in similar cases.
4. Payment of duty with interest before Show Cause Notice issuance.
5. Penalty imposition in light of the Apex Court judgment affirming Tribunal ruling.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in this case was against the Order-In-Original (OIO) confirming duty demand and penalty imposition due to the appellant allegedly not considering the value of raw materials received free of cost. The appellant argued they were not producing the final product but only carrying out processes, and the inputs used were sent back to the supplier who paid duty on the final product. The Tribunal examined the contentions and relied on previous judgments to clarify that duty liability is on the principal manufacturer, not the job worker, and the demand of duty in this case was not sustainable.

2. The Department reiterated that the Ujagar Prints case applied, requiring the appellant to consider the value of free inputs received and pay duty on them. However, the Tribunal found the facts distinguishable as the raw materials were received free of cost under Rule 57F(4) challans, and the supplier paid duty after completing the final product. The Tribunal, following precedent and noting the duty payment with interest before the Show Cause Notice, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 57F(4) challans, duty liability on the principal manufacturer, and the distinction in facts from previous cases like Ujagar Prints. The Tribunal emphasized that duty payment by the job worker on raw materials used should not lead to demanding duty on the entire value of goods. The payment of duty with interest before the issuance of Show Cause Notice was also a crucial factor in determining the penalty imposition.

4. The Tribunal's analysis included referencing the Apex Court judgment affirming the Tribunal ruling in the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. case, which influenced the decision to not impose a penalty in this case. By following the ratio of previous judgments and considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal provided relief to the appellant and set aside the duty demand and penalty, if any, as per the law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents led to setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposition in this case, highlighting the importance of understanding the specific facts and legal principles involved in determining duty liability and penalty imposition in similar situations.