9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their factory and the balance quantity of 27608 Kgs were sent directly to the job workers M/s. Hariram Wire and M/s. Vimlesh Industries (P) Ltd. for processing Copper Rods to Paper Covered Copper Strips. It appears that they sent 27608 Kgs. of Copper Rods to 3 the job workers directly without receiving at their factory and without obtaining permission from the competent authority as required under the Rules, 2001. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,75,548/- under Rule 6 of the said Rules, 2001 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. along with interest. The Commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that in this case, the appellants used the exempted raw materials in the manufacture of finished goods which were duly exported and, therefore, the demand of duty under Rule 6 of Rules 2001 is not sustainable. He submits that Rule 6 can be invoked where the goods were not used by the manufacturer for the intended purpose. In this case, there is no allegation that the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of the export goods have not been established, and, therefore, the demand of duty is justified. Thus, they violated the conditions of the bond and, accordingly, they are liable to pay duty on the goods. He submits that the Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated 20-9-2004 informed the appellant that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur has rejected the application for permission sought by them. He submits that it appears, part of the material, they transferred directly from the supplier to the job workers before filing the application for permission as required under the provisions of Rules. He also submits that the appellant transferred the goods from the supplier to the job workers directly without obtaining the permission from the competent authority and, therefore, the use of the raw material was not established and there is contravention of Rule 5 of Rules, 2001. It is his contention that in this case the appellant did not receive duty free material at their factory and therefore, there is no relevancy of the export of the goods. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The issue involved in this case, is that whether demand of duty is justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outside the factory. 7. In order to avail benefit of procurement of inputs without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of exported goods, the manufacturer shall follow the provisions of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods ) Rules, 2001 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant portions of the said Rules 2001 are reproduced below :- Rule 3. Application by the manufacturer to obtain the benefit. - (1) A manufacturer who intends to receive subject goods for specified use at concessional rate of duty, shall make an application in quadruplicate in the Form at Annexure 1 to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be ( hereinafter referred to as the said Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner). (2) xxxxxxx (3) The manufacturer shall execute a general bond with surety or security. (4) The bond shall be for such amount as considered appropriate by the said Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, to cover the recovery of duty liability estima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rules, 2001, the manufacturer of inputs shall avail the benefit of the exemption notification. But, the manufacturer of the export goods are liable to pay duty for violation of any of the conditions laid down in Rules, 2001 read with said notification as he fastened himself under the bond. The entire scheme is prepared for safeguard of the Revenue for the purpose of use of duty free material in the manufacture of export goods. In this case, there no dispute that the appellant transferred duty free material from the place of manufacturer to the job workers directly despite the fact that Commissioner rejected the permission. The contention of the learned advocate is that the rejection of the permission by the Commissioner vide letter dated 7-7- 2004 was not communicated to them. But, it is seen from the letter dated 20-9-2004, that the Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellant that the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application for permission. So, the appellant transferred the goods knowing fully well that the Commissioner rejected their permission and no steps have been taken by them. So, the submission of the learned advocate at this regard is without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
