9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Challans issued under the then Rule 57F(4) for job work from M/s. SRF Ltd., Manali and the same was converted as Tyrecord fabrics and cleared to M/s. SRF Ltd., Manali without payment of duty under the same Rule. 4. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Gumidipoondi Range I, Gummidipoondi issued Show Cause Notice No. 243/2001, dated 1-11-01 seeking to demand AED (GSI) to the tune of Rs. 91,16,710/- for the period from October, 2000 to June, 2001 on the ground that there is no exemption under Notification No. 214/86 for AED (GSI). Similarly another Show Cause Notice No. 181/2002, dated 3-10-2002 was issued demanding AED to the tune of Rs. 79,56,030/- for the period from September, 2001 to December, 2001. 5. The appellant filed a detailed reply vide their letter dated 24-12-01 assailing all the allegations contained in the show cause notice. It was submitted that there was no contravention of the Central Excise Rules as the goods were received and the final product was cleared following the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F(4). Rule 57F(4) does not contemplate any payment of duty by the job worker in view of the fact that the duty liability is required to be discharged by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods for export under bond without payment of duty including AED. In any case the whole exercise is revenue neutral and it is precisely to avoid such payment of duty at each stage and taking of credit at the next stage that the Government introduced provisions like Rule 57F(3)/57F(4)/57AC under which the excise duty is paid on the final product and at the last value added stage. 8. The appellant pointed out at the time of personal hearing that the Tribunal s decision in the case of M.Tex Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 has attained finality as the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. 9. The Lower Authority confirmed the demand vide Orders No. 2 3/2002, dated 21-1-2003 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gokak Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 523 (T). 10. At the threshold the appellant contended that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gokak Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 523(T) to confirm the demand. It was stated that the assessee viz., M/s. Gokak Mills Ltd. filed an appeal against the above decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a unit on job-work basis if these goods are used in the manufacture of final products on which duty is paid. Under this notification, a job worker can manufacture excisable goods falling under any of the Chapters covered under Modvat on job work basis from raw materials or semi finished goods supplied to him and thereafter remove them without payment of excise duty. The goods so manufactured have to be used in the manufacture of final products falling within any of the chapters mentioned in the notification, and on which excise duty is paid. The responsibility for using the goods in respect of which the exemption under job work notification has been availed of in the manufacture of final products is on the supplier of raw materials (principal manufacturer). He is also required to produce evidence that the goods have been so used. The primary manufacturer shall also undertake to discharge the liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty if any liable on the goods. The job-worker need not take a Central Excise Licence for this purpose ... The job-worker need not pay any excise duty on the goods manufactured by him and cleared under the job work notification... 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) also held that the job worker who received the inputs under Rule 57F(3)/57F(4) is not liable to pay any excise duty on the intermediate products manufactured by him. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below : 28. . . As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate and rightly found by the learned Vice President in his dissenting order, it is explicit that, in so far as the processed fabrics returned by the appellants to the principal manufacturers under sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F are concerned, any liability for payment of duty on such goods arises only in the event of removal of such goods at the end of the principal manufacturers for home consumption vide clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) ibid. While clause (iii) of sub-rule (4) expressly provides for removal of the goods without payment of duty at the end of the principal manufacturers for export under bond, clause (I) of the sub-rule enables the principal manufactures to use the said goods in the manufacture of their final products. There is no warrant, in my view, to presume that the return of the processed goods by the job workers to the principal manufacturers against payment of job work charges under sub-rule (4) ibid should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
