9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s produced out of these have been received by principals. These goods have, after further processing, been cleared on payment of duty by the principals. We also do not find any allegation in the notice, or finding in the adjudication order, that this was not so. There has been substantive compliance of the procedure under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the successor CENVAT Credit Rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/458/2007-DB - Final Order No. 42362/2016 - Dated:- 19-7-2016 - Shri P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Appearance: Shri M. Saravanan, Consultant for the appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: C J Mathew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to ascertain the status of the raw materials supplied by the principal. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of ₹ 1,68,70,451/- along with interest thereon besides imposing penalty of ₹ 1,68,70,451/-. 3. Appellant claims that the product manufactured for the principals is not excisable as it is in semi-finished form which required further processing to enable it to acquire the essential characteristics of a final product. It was further contended that the raw materials were supplied to them under rule 57F(4)/57AC (5)(a) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 2004 during the earlier period and under rule of 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002/2004 thereafter. It is also submitted that they had furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M Tex DK Processors (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2001 (136) ELT 73 (Tri-Dei)], the Bench was divided on this very issue and the reference to Third Member was framed thus: 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, a job worker and receiving inputs under challans issued under Rule 57F(4) as it existed during the relevant period, and returning the goods after carrying out the job work undertaken by him to his customers from whom such inputs were received, is required to pay duty on such goods. with the reference answered thus '26. The issue before me is one squarely involving the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 57F in general and those of sub-rule (4) in partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for home consumption; (iii) removing the same without payment of duty under bond for export. 27. It was under the above sub-rule (as it stood at the material time) that the principal manufacturers supplied un processed fabric under cover of challans to the appellants for the purpose of carrying out the processes of heat setting and stentering on job work basis and the fabrics so processed were returned by the latter to the former for further utilisation in the manufacture of the final products. As per Clause (i) of sub-rule (4) above, the processed fabrics so returned by the appellants could be used by the principal manufacturers in the manufacture of their final products. Alternatively, under clause (ii) of the sub-rule ibid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal manufacturers who had supplied unprocessed fabrics for such processing, it would mean that the same goods should suffer duty once again at the hands of the principal manufacturers, if the latter were to remove the goods for home consumption vide clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) ibid. But, as rightly held by the learned Vice President in his dissenting order, there cannot be double taxation on the same goods under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, I think, without the ordeal of taking aid from any of the other sub-rules under Rule 57F, it is possible to reach a finding that sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F, as if stood during the material time, did not expressly or impliedly cast any burden of duty on a job worker at the time of return of the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
