9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Stay-On-Papers (P) Ltd (SPPL for short) received certain materials from M/s. Laser Spectra Technology Private Limited, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu (LSTPL for short) for doing some job work. According to the DGAE, after SPPL processed the film by adhesive coating and lamination the resultant goods become Self Adhesive Polyester (Holographic) Film (PPHF in short). The goods were returned to LSTPL. The main charges against the respondents are as follows : (i) The goods were misdeclared as Chromo art label stock and Maplitho label stock falling under Chapter sub-heading 4811.20 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. (ii) The assessable value mentioned in the respondent s invoice covered only job work charges and not the value of the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (supra) was only an additional evidence which was not examined by the original authority. This is not correct. The original authority examined the decision at para 34 of the Order-in-Original and came to the conclusion that the goods covered in the present case and those covered by the Tribunal s decision are different. (b) The process of manufacture of the impugned goods as explained by Shri K. Ganesan, Managing Director of LSPTL in his statement given under Section 14 is different from the process of manufacture of goods involved in the case of respondents. Hence the case law relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not applicable to the present case. The process of manufacture of the impugned goods in the present case is similar to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen he returns, the goods to the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal in the case of M. Tex Anr. v. CCE, Jaipur [2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 (Tribunal) = 2000 (39) RLT 1091 (CEGAT)] has held that when the job worker returned the goods after processing he is not liable to pay the excise duty. The principal manufacturer will pay the duty. In this connection the observations of the third Member (Majority view) is as follows : 33. For the reasons already recorded by me, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the ld. Vice President in his dissenting Order, holding that the appellants [job workers who received inputs from principal manufacturers under challans issued under Rule 57F(4), as this rule stood during the relevant period, and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudication authority in the following para observes the inadequacy of the investigation. 39. From the above statements I agree with the learned Advocate that M/s. LSTPL is the principal guiding force in this fraudulent venture to dupe the exchequer for tax liability but since the show cause notice do not seek imposition of any penalty on M/s. LSTPL or on Mr. Ganeshan, I do not like to go into this issue and I also do not to go into the Annexure B relied upon documents submitted by Shri Ganeshan wherein details of invoices raised by M/s. Stay on Papers Pvt. Ltd. comprising invoice No. 205 for quantity of 425 sqm, and invoice No. 432 for quantify of 5668 sqm. In respect of M/s. Stay-on-Paper Pvt. Ltd and the goods of Sri Industries fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
