2021 (10) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty u/r 26 of CER - levy for the reason that the appellant have not sent the goods for job work by following the procedure as per Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 as the appellant sent the goods to MGM Metallisers Limited on simple challan - job worked goods - HELD THAT - In the present case, the appellant is Director of a raw material supplier to job worker. The appellant s Company is not registered with Central Excise department - In this case, it cannot be expected from the appellant s Company to follow procedure as per notification 214/86-CE or other procedures under Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, the appellant have rightly supplied the raw material under the cover of simple challan. Irrespective of any offence committed by the job worker or otherwise, the appellant being not a party to that offence, cannot be penalized under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant for not following the procedure while sending goods for job work.
2. Comparison of the present case with a similar case involving another supplier of goods for job work.
3. Interpretation of the responsibility for payment of excise duty in cases of job work.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the imposition of a penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant for not adhering to the prescribed procedure while sending goods for job work. The appellant, a Director of a raw material supplier to a job worker, was penalized for not following the procedure as per Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. However, the Tribunal found that since the appellant's company was not registered with the Central Excise department, it was not obligated to follow the said procedure. The Tribunal ruled that the appellant rightfully supplied the raw material under a simple challan and could not be penalized for any offense committed by the job worker, as the appellant was not a party to that offense.

2. The appellant's counsel highlighted a similar case where another supplier of goods for job work was penalized under Rule 26, but the penalty was dropped by the Tribunal. In the case of Mathew Abraham vs. CCE & ST, Surat, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the supplier as they had supplied the goods under a job work challan, which was deemed sufficient compliance for the transaction. The Tribunal clarified that the responsibility to discharge excise duty, if applicable, lay with the job worker and not the supplier in such cases.

3. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the responsibility for payment of excise duty in cases of job work. It emphasizes that in situations where the supplier is not registered under Central Excise and has supplied goods under a job work challan, the obligation to discharge any excise duty, if leviable, rests with the job worker. The Tribunal cited a previous ruling to support this interpretation, stating that if there was any non-payment of duty by the job worker, neither the supplier nor its employee could be held responsible. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the payment of service tax by the job worker demonstrated good faith and negated any intention of duty evasion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, aligning with the decision in a similar case and emphasizing the lack of obligation on the appellant to follow Central Excise procedures due to non-registration. The judgment clarifies the division of responsibility for excise duty payment in job work scenarios, highlighting the importance of compliance by the party directly involved in manufacturing activities.

← Previous Next →