Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (12) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uppliers and on which the appellant has done job work and returned the processed goods to the suppliers of the raw materials. In the circumstances, what prevented the departmental authorities to call for further details, if required, from the suppliers of the raw-materials in terms of Cause (2) of the Notification is not understandable, before asking the job worker to pay duty on the job work done, when in fact the job worker is not required to furnish any undertaking whatsoever in terms of the Notification in question. Therefore, the question of denying the benefit of the Notification to the appellant who is a job worker, for the contravention, if any, committed by the supplier of the raw materials does not arise and consequently the benef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relief, if any. Ordered accordingly. - Shri Jeet Ram Kait, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Vijaykumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal filed by India Fabricators, the appellant herein is directed against the order in Appeal No. 13/2003- TRY.II (SCN) dated 30-1-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) whereby the Commissioner has rejected the appeal with minor modification in regard to quantum of penalty. The duty demanded by the original authority was Rs. 31,294/-. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Floor Grills and Peg Fins falling under-heading 7326.90, Step thread falling under heading 7308.90 and Waste scrap fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (Appeals), that the present appeal has been filed. 3.Shri Vijaykumar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants undertook the job work for the suppliers of the raw material who are the manufacturers of the final product in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 dated 25-3-1986 and the appellants have not contravened any provisions of the said Notification. Hence duty, if any, payable, should have been demanded from the manufacturers of the final products and not from the job worker. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal. 4.Heard Shri B.L. Meena, learned SDR who defended the impugned order. 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made and gone through the case records. The allegation in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7A, and gives an undertaking to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the job worker that the goods will be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. (ii) the said supplier produces evidence that the goods have been so used; and (iii) the said supplier undertakes the responsibility of discharging the liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the finished products. 6.It is clear from the above that the responsibility of furnishing undertaking etc. in terms of the Notification is cast on the supplier of the goods and not on the job worker. In the present case, it is an admitted position by the Revenue itself that the raw materials were supplied to the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... multaneously by a manufacturer but on different goods, in terms of the ruling rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Chandrapur Board Mills v. CCE, Delhi reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 701 (Tribunal), CCE, Meerut v. Nova Vision Electronics P. Ltd. reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 430 (Tribunal). In the later decision, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Swaraj Paint Industries v. Collector reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 594 which decision was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 7955/95 filed by the Commissioner on 2-1-1996. In the present case, the goods admittedly fall under different headings. Therefore, on this score also, there cannot be any cha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates