9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these steel angles, channels apart from getting these items galvanized by job worker. Based on certain information, the officers of Central Excise Ludhiana conducted investigation relating to non payment of central excise duty by the appellants. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants resulted in order dated 5.5.2011 through which a demand of Rs. 2,07,34,612/-and penalty of equal amount was confirmed. On appeal, the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 12.12.2011 remanded the matter back to the original authority for fresh order after considering all the aspects. The present impugned order dated 15.3.2013 came to be passed on such remand order. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants Shri P.K.Mittal submitted that the appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re carried out by their job workers. Galvanizing amounts to manufacture but the appellant is not involved in such manufacture. Duty liability, if any, is on the job worker if they have not followed the exemption procedure as per Notification No.214/86-CE. 5. Learned AR Shri S.Nunthuk reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. We have heard both sides and examined the appeal records. 7. We find that this is second round of litigation of the same matter. In the remand order dated 12.12.2012, the Tribunal specifically directed the original authority to examine whether there was manufacturing activity in respect of each of the items sold. It was found that the argument of the appellant that they cannot be held liable for manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for grouping like goods together and given clear finding whether the process amounts to manufacture and to specify the duty liability for products of each groups, no such comprehensive attempt has been made by the original authority. 10. The original authority did not follow these directions fully. There was a summary finding based on certain description in the invoices and in the tariff heading of CTA 1985. 11. Regarding the demand of duty from the appellant for galvanizing work done by the job worker, the original authority stated that certain processes like cutting welding were done before they are sent to galvanizing. This observation has not been supported by the original authority with source. Further, observation of the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
