9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured by the appellant were liable to duty as small scale exemption was not available during the relevant period. However, it has to be noted that the duty demand is on the re-rolled products and not on the steel ingots. The department should have either demanded duty on the steel ingots sent out for the job work or on the re-rolled products from the job worker. Since duty demand has been made on re-rolled products and the appellant is not a manufacturer of the same, the demand is not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/450/2003 - 451/2011 - Dated:- 9-6-2011 - Shri M.V. Ravindran and B.S.V. Murthy, J. Shri Thomas V. Peter, Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the demand vide Order (Original) No. 164/98, dated 30-1-1998. The appeal filed by the appellant against this order was also rejected. 2. Now, M/s. Libra Steels Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) is in liquidation and on behalf of the liquidator, the learned Advocate submitted that the ground for denying the concessional clearance of Iron and Steel products under Notification No. 16/97, dated 1-4-1997 cited in the show cause notice and the adjudication order is that the notification for exemption of goods received after job work is No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 is incorrect. No doubt, the exemption should have been sought under Notification No. 83/94-C.E., dated 11-4-1994 as amended. But the appellant by mistake claimed the exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b worker are required to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of other products, whereas in this case the appellant did not undertake any manufacture on the inputs processed and received from the job worker. 4. We have considered the submission made by both sides. In the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant, it was observed that the appellant had cleared the re-rolled products received back by them after job work in terms of Notification No. 214/86, dated 25-3-1986 at NIL rate of duty from the factory. The small scale exemption was availed under Notification No. 16/97, dated 1-4-1997 as amended, is not correct. This conclusion has been reached on the ground that according to the Notification No. 214/86, the goods manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed was not correct, the duty demand has to fall on job worker namely, M/s. Palakkad Steels (P) Ltd. Further no doubt, the steel ingots manufactured by the appellant were liable to duty as small scale exemption was not available during the relevant period. However, it has to be noted that the duty demand is on the re-rolled products and not on the steel ingots. The department should have either demanded duty on the steel ingots sent out for the job work or on the re-rolled products from the job worker. Since duty demand has been made on re-rolled products and the appellant is not a manufacturer of the same, the demand is not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. (Operative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
