9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared under Rule 57 F(2) of erstwhile Rules, 1942. After process of wire, it was returned to M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd used enameled copper winding wires duly processed by the appellant in the manufacture of electric motors which were cleared to their other unit at Worli and Ahmadabad at 'NIL' rate of duty by claiming exemption notification No. 5/99 dated 1-3-1999 as amended vide notification no. 6/2000 dated 1-3-2000. Those electrical motors were subsequently used for the production of P.D. pumbs for handiling water and those motors were exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. Since the condition of Notification No. 214/86-CE that principle manufacturer should discharge excise duty on their final product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaves Ltd under Rule 57F(3), accordingly procedure for job work and condition of notification No. 214/86 was scrupulously followed. Once M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd given undertaking the duty liability if any arrises stands shifted to M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd therefore demand should not have been confirmed on the appellant. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) M. Tex & D. K. Processors (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Jaipur [2001(136) ELT 73(Tri. Del)] (b) Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2005(183) ELT 353(Tri. LB)] (c) Sagun Foundry (P) ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Kanpur-I [2002(150) ELT 624(Tri. Del.)] (d) Pioneer Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut [2003(159) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the appellant's own case as cited by the Ld. Counsel. All other judgments submitted by the Ld. Counsel re also support the case of the appellant that drawing, cutting of the wire does not amount to manufacture at the relevant time. Therefore since the activity carried out by the appellant does not amount to manufacture no duty can be demanded from the appellant. It is also observed that appellant have carried out job work on the basis of undertaking given by M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd to the department is a condition of notification No. 214/86. In such case liability of excise duty, if any arises stands shifted to the principle manufacturer, in the present case M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. In this regard this Tribunal's Larger benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
