2016 (10) TMI 761 - AT - Central Excise

Liability to duty - principal manufacturer or job worker - N/N.83/94 and 84/94 - whether demand of duty from respondent justified on the ground that principal manufacturer Rajni Timbers P. Ltd did not use the goods supplied by the respondent for further manufacture of the goods but sold them as such in the open market? - Held that - The fact that the respondent is functioning under notification 83/94 read with notification 84/94 would mean that the respondent has not undertaken any responsibility for discharging the excise duty on the manufacture of goods; which incidentally passes to the raw material supplier as he gives a declaration to their Jurisdictional Divisional Office as also the respondent s central excise office. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that such declarations were given. If it is so, we find that the first appellate authority has correctly relied upon the Board s circular no. B-32/1/94-TRU dated 18.4.1994 to hold that the principal manufacturer i.e. who furnished the undertaking under notification 83/94 and 84/94 is liable to duty - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of notification 83/94 and 84/94 regarding excise duty liability for job work basis manufacturing
- Whether the respondent is liable for excise duty

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of notification 83/94 and 84/94: The case involved a respondent who undertook manufacturing of excisable goods on a job work basis under notifications 83/94 and 84/94. The issue was whether the respondent, who supplied finished goods back to raw material suppliers, was liable for excise duty. The department conducted an investigation and found that one of the raw material suppliers did not use the goods for further manufacturing but sold them in the open market. The adjudicating authority imposed demands and penalties, which were set aside by the first appellate authority on the grounds that the respondent was not a manufacturer under the notifications.

2. Liability for excise duty: The appellate tribunal examined the records and found that the respondent, functioning under notifications 83/94 and 84/94, did not undertake the responsibility for discharging excise duty on the manufactured goods. The duty liability passed to the raw material supplier, who provided declarations to the relevant authorities. The tribunal noted that the declarations were given, and based on a Board circular, held that the principal manufacturer furnishing the undertaking under the notifications was liable for duty. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision and rejected the revenue's appeal, as the respondent was not responsible for excise duty under the given notifications.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal affirmed the decision of the first appellate authority, emphasizing that the respondent's role under the notifications did not entail excise duty liability. The tribunal's analysis focused on the legal framework of notifications 83/94 and 84/94, clarifying the duty responsibility in job work manufacturing scenarios and upholding the principle manufacturer's liability for excise duty.