9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. SEW on job work basis where the raw materials were provided by M/s. MIL. Such job work was done under challans issued under Rule 47F(3) of the Rule, or under Notification No. 214/86. He deposed that moulds were manufactured in M/s. SEW, that they were tested and if found deficient, the deficiencies were corrected by M/s. SEW. In his several statements he made the admission that the moulds cleared from M/s. SEW were in a ready to use condition. Similar deposition was made by Shri Pingle, Engineer of M/s. SEW as also Shri Maiya, Manager of M/s. MIL, M/s. MIL had a Tool Room Worker in MIL who certified that M/s. MIL was not equipped to manufacture moulds. Certain other workers of M/s. MIL also made similar statements. The project manager of M/s. MIL, Shri S.M. Pawatkar, Shri J.M. Gandhi, CMD of M/s. MIL, however deposed that the final processing on the moulds on receipt from SEW was done in the factory of M/s. MIL. In his statement dated 16-12-1999 he made a specific claim that final machining was done at Kandivli, factory of M/s. MIL. 2. At the end of enquiry, the show cause notice was issued alleging that M/s. SEW had manufactured moulds and had cleared them without payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as withdrawn. Further correspondence ensued. The department vide letter dated 7-4-1992 suggested and permitted such movement in terms of Notification No. 214/86. A formal application was thereafter made by M/s. MIL on 10-4-1992 giving the same details as were earlier given. This application covered a number of job workers, apart from M/s. SEW. Thereafter M/s. MIL sent the raw materials to M/s. SEW and received back the moulds during the period 1992-96. 5. The claim of Shri Gandhi that the processing required to undertaken was disclosed. The final product that would emerge from such process was also declared. It is his claim that in terms of the Notification, M/s. SEW could clear the imposed free of duty when such moulds were consumed captively in the factory of M/s. MIL. It is his case that where the goods were not so used and where the moulds were cleared to outsiders M/s. MIL have paid the duty. It is his alternate submission that in terms of the statement of Shri J.M. Gandhi final processing amounting to manufacture was done in the factory of M/s. MIL only. In that case for captive consumption the benefit of Notification No. 220/86 was available and where the goods were cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the entire correspondence from 11-8-1997 to 4-4-1992 which has been traced above, it would appear that the assessees were repeatedly seeking the advice of the department as to how the movement of the material was to be done between M/s. MIL and M/s. SEW. They were of the opinion that since moulds were falling in the exclusion category prescribed in Rule 57A, they may not be eligible for the procedure under Rule 57F. As an alternative, they had proposed the availment of Notification No. 219/86 . The department had earlier permitted them to follow the rule and at a later stage had extended the benefit of the Notification. We have examined the language of the Notification. It excludes from its purview items of machinery etc. Thus, on the face of the Notification the benefit thereof was not available for the final goods namely moulds. In addition we find that whereas the preamble to the notification speaks of dutiable goods to be manufactured by the job workers from the raw material sent by the primary manufacturer; in explanation (I) the expression job work has been so defined as to include any process even not amounting to manufacture. We will revert to this at a later stage. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e extended correspondence as well as the certificate given by the department to M/s. SEW we find it difficult to accept the benefit of the Ld. Commissioner that M/s. SEW and M/s. MIL deliberately organised a plan to defraud the Government of its legitimate revenue. In these circumstances we find no hesitation in accepting the plea that the significant part of the demand was barred by limitation. The confirmation of demand on that ground does not sustain and the imposition of penalty, in so far as it relates to the larger period would also not sustain. 12. At this stage in dealing with the demand not hit by limitation, we are required to pronounce our finding as to the identity of the manufacture of the moulds. The various declarations filed under the claims for benefit of the notification had made the declarations that the final goods manufactured by M/s. SEW were Moulds falling under sub-heading 8480.00. This is as per the application dated 11-8-1989. A similar declaration was made later on 10-4-1992. This declaration was signed by the person incharge of M/s. MIL. We have earlier dwelt upon various statements made by the person incharge of M/s SEW as well as the technical pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
