2017 (11) TMI 1039 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Liability of duty - by-products - neem cake and neem oil obtained from extracted kernel - job-work - Held that - Clearly the product is manufactured within the scope of LOP and the appellants have been put to liability of account for it. The products manufactured by EOU by themselves or with the help of the job worker are to be disposed of in terms of the policy. In the present case, the disposal of two of their products is not in terms of the policy. Hence, the rate and the quantification of duty liability have to be arrived at in terms of the policy and applicable notification - These products are recognized for manufacture in the LOP. By demarcation of byproducts, the obligation cast on the appellants cannot be waived. These are not scrap or waste. Admittedly, these valuable products have been cleared to domestic market in violation of Foreign Trade Policy - the appellants are liable to duty as confirmed in terms of Section 3 (1) of CEA, 44. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that - The question that all the facts are taken from the records of the appellants by itself will not take away the sustainability of the demands for longer period - extended period and penalty rightly imposed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over duty liability on neem cake and neem oil obtained from extracted kernel at job worker's premises.

Analysis:

1. Duty Liability Dispute:
The appellants, with a licenced 100% EOU, engaged in manufacturing neem products. Neem oil and neem cake were extracted from neem kernel at the job worker's premises. The Revenue alleged duty non-payment on these products cleared to the domestic market, leading to duty demands and penalties. The appellants argued that the job worker should be liable for any duty as they fulfilled obligations for Neemazal formulation. They also contested the duty demand's quantification, stating it was incorrect due to misapplication of the Foreign Trade Policy. The AR contended that the appellants were obligated to account for duty on all products as per the LOP and Foreign Trade Policy conditions.

2. Job Worker's Role and Duty Obligations:
The dispute centered on whether neem oil and neem cake were considered waste or byproducts. The appellants sent neem kernel to the job worker for processing, and the resultant products were sold by the appellants. The tribunal noted that the appellants' responsibility for all products arising in the manufacturing process was not absolved by using a job worker. The failure to adhere to LOP conditions and Foreign Trade Policy requirements regarding product disposal was deemed a violation.

3. Compliance with Policy and Duty Liability:
The tribunal found that the appellants were liable for duty on neem oil and neem cake as they were recognized products in the LOP, not waste. The appellants' failure to follow policy guidelines for product disposal, resulting in clearance to the domestic market without duty payment, constituted a violation. The duty liability was confirmed under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal upheld the penalties and duty demands for the extended period due to the appellants' non-disclosure of outsourcing to the job worker and improper clearance of products.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the duty liability on neem oil and neem cake. The appellants' use of a job worker did not absolve them of duty obligations as per the LOP and Foreign Trade Policy. The failure to adhere to policy conditions for product disposal and duty payment led to the confirmation of duty demands and penalties for the extended period.