2001 (3) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment relate to duty demands and penalties in respect of cigarettes manufactured by job worker manufacturers on behalf of a principal company.

Duty liability of brand name holders and job workers:
The appellants argued that brand name holders who engage job workers for manufacturing cannot be held liable for duty on products made by the job workers. They contended that job workers are responsible for duty payment on goods they manufacture. The appellants relied on a previous decision regarding ITC brand cigarettes to support their position. They also argued that duty demands against job workers, except one, were time-barred. The appellants emphasized that there was no evidence of job workers' involvement in any fraud, hence extended duty demand could not be raised against them.

Revenue's stance and justification for duty demand:
The Revenue contended that duty evasion was a result of deliberate fraud by the principal company in collaboration with job workers. They argued that job workers were closely associated with the principal company and had full control exercised over them. The Revenue cited previous tribunal orders and Supreme Court dismissal of appeals to support their position on duty demand and penalty imposition.

Legal position on duty liability of job workers and brand name holders:
The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court and previous tribunal decisions establishing that job workers are considered manufacturers and solely responsible for duty payment on goods they produce. They noted that the duty demand against the principal company in this case could not be sustained based on settled legal principles.

Control and relationship between principal company and job workers:
The Revenue argued that the principal company should be held liable for duty payment as they provided instructions, drawings, and specifications to job workers and maintained control over them. However, the Tribunal held that close relationship and control by the principal company does not alter the legal standing of job workers as manufacturers under Central Excise law.

Absence of evidence for duty evasion by job workers:
The Tribunal found no evidence that job workers suppressed facts to evade duty payment on goods manufactured under the principal company's brand name. They cited a previous decision regarding duty demands on job workers of another company to support their conclusion that duty demands on the job workers in this case were not legally sustainable.

Penalties in absence of duty demand:
It was established that in the absence of duty demand, penalties cannot be imposed. Therefore, since duty demands were not sustainable, penalties on both the job workers and the principal company were set aside.

Final decision:
One appeal was dismissed as not pressed, while the other appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, after setting aside the impugned orders.