9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for conversion into steel ingot. Steel ingots are final products and leviable to duty. Accordingly duty of Rs. 6,05,871/- on steel ingots manufactured by job worker was demanded from them. The case after adjudication, reached up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its Order No. 94/2002-B, dated 21-2-2002 [2002 (141) E.L.T. 789 (T)] remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to furnish a copy of the Panchnama under which the said show cause notice is alleged to have been affixed at the gate of the appellant s factory and then adjudicate the matter afresh on all aspects in accordance with law. On such remand, the Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.E., nowhere provides that the supplier of the raw material will be liable to pay duty on the goods manufactured as a job work. Para 2 of the said notification speaks of a liability of the supplier for discharging the duty leviable on the finished products and not on the goods manufactured on job work basis and Mayo India Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad [1999 (113) E.L.T. 1036] where it was held that in the absence of evidence of supervision and control over manufacture of goods by the assessee, the job work is the actual manufacturer and not the assessee. He pleads that in the present case, the appellants have supplied steel scrap to the job worker under rule 57F(4)/Notification No. 214/86, dated 25-3-1986 to M/s. Hem Kunt Iron Steel Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturer of the steel ingots. If duty was required to be demanded, it should have been demanded from the manufacturer and not from the supplier of the raw material. Even if the supplier of the material has wrongly followed procedure under rule 57F(4) and job work Notification No. 214/86-C.E., they were responsible for payment of duty only on the finished products manufactured by them and not on steel ingots as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Desh Rolling Mills v. CCE, Delhi (Supra). In these circumstances, duty cannot; be demanded from the appellants. There is no violation of rule by the appellants with intend to evade any duty. Therefore, the penalty can also not be imposed on them. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
