9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penalty Rs. 46,28,437/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. 2. M/s. Bharat Electricals Rs. 1 lakh (Penalty) 3. Shri V.N. Gupta....Rs. 1 lakh (Penalty) 4. Shri Amar Nath Gupta....Rs. 1 lakh (Penalty) 2. Shri Vinay Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Sagun Foundary manufacture C.I. Castings and parts and components of I.C. Engine and P.D. Pump sets on job work basis for M/s. Bharat Electricals, applicants No. 2; that the Commissioner had confirmed the demand of duty and has imposed penalty on applicant No. 1, holding that the impugned goods were used for manufacturing P.D. Pumps which attracted nil rate of duty and as such exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd had not suppressed any fact nor they made any mis-declaration. He also emphasised that both applicants No. 1 2 fall within the jurisdiction of the same Asst. Commissioner and the entire facts were, therefore, known to the Department as the permission had been granted to M/s. Bharat Electricals for working under Rule 57F(2). On merit the learned Advocate submitted that the excise duty, if any payable, cannot be demanded from them in terms of Notification No. 214/86; that according to this notification the supplier of the raw material has to undertake the responsibility of discharging the liability in respect of central excise duty leviable on the final products; that if the conditions specified in the notification are not complied with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 214/86 is an exemption notification providing exemption from payment of duty to the job worker, and if the conditions specified in the notification are not satisfied the liability will be cast upon the job worker, he being the manufacturer. The learned D.R. also mentioned that there is nothing on record to show that any undertaking specially under Notification No. 214/86 had been given to the Department. He also emphasised that the declaration made in classification list did not give the name of the party for whom these castings were being made and the purpose for which the impugned goods were being used by the supplier of the raw material; that the extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding central excise duty. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty liability, if any of applicant No. 1 in terms of Notification No. 214/86 will be examined in details at the time of hearing the appeal itself. However, we are of the view that applicant No. 1 has not made out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty and penalty as the basic liability to pay the central excise duty is on the manufacturer of the goods. We also observe that even in Guide to Modvat, referred to by the learned Advocate for the applicant, it was mentioned that "the primary manufacture shall also undertake to discharge the liabilities in respect of central excise duty, if any, liable on the goods." We also observe that para 2 of the Notification No. 214/86 speaks of the liability of the supplier for discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
