9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-11-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Karan Talwar, Advicate for the Appellant Shri P.S.Reddy, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. The brief facts are that, appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic glazed tiles falling under Chapter 69 of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 (CETA, 1985). They are registered with the Central Excise Department and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs. The appellants engaged M/s H R Johnson(India) as job worker for the manufacture of ceramic glazed frit, which is a intermediate product falling under Chapter 32 of CETA, 1985. The appellant had supplied the raw material namely boric acid, zinc o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay duty. 3. The Ld.Counsel adverted to the invoices in appeal No. 21006/2014 and submitted that in some of the invoices the job worker had mentioned the Notification No. 214/86. That the job worker had in fact paid the duty and had not availed the exemption under the said notification. That the mention of Notification is some invoices was due to in advertant mistake. He also drew attention to the conditions in the notification and submitted that the appellant had not given any undertaking as provided in the Notification, stating that the job worker is availing the exemption in terms of Notification No. 214/86. That, there being no evidence to show that the job worker had availed exemption under 214/86, the department cannot force t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/21007/2014 E/21008/2014 E/21009/2014 E/21010/2014 Order-in-Appeal No Date 91-95/2013(G)CE, dated 23-12-2013 Dated SCN 07-06-2012 30-08-2012 30-10-2012 04-01-2013 28-03-2013 Period April, 2011 to June, 2011 August, 2011 to Sept.2011 October, 2011 to Nov, 2011 Dec, 2011 to Feb, 2012 March, 2012 to May, 2012 Order-in-Original No Date 41/2012. Dt 27-09-2012 54/2012. Dt 12-11-2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani that it was a case of sale and not the case of job work so as to attract the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we thus hold that the Tribunal below rightly applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. (supra) to the facts of the present case and allowed the appeal of the respondents . In Bright Steel MAC Fabrics Vs CCE, Ahmedabad the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Hob le High Court of Ahmedabad in SLP No.7222/91 dated 29-10-1991 and observed as follows: Shri Dave pointing out to sub-rule (2)(a) (b) argued that the reference to removal and return of goods without payment of duty was in cases where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act, the same is not an exemption notification per se. A job worker who undertakes the job work which is amounting to manufacture is, legally, the manufacturer. In respect of goods manufactured on job work basis cleared by the job worker, he is required to pay excise duty due at the time of clearance of job-worked goods to the raw material supplier. Notification 214/86 basically provides an option to the job worker not to pay the excise duty if the raw material supplier undertakes to pay the excise duty on the said products and undertakes to use them for further manufacture of excisable goods which are ultimately cleared on payment of duty. In other words, it does not exempt the duty on the job-worked items but it merely shifts t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
