9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd were claimed to be cleared for export or deemed export. These were excluded categories of clearance of finished goods which will not bar the eligibility for the said notification. This aspect has been categorically asserted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of principal manufacturer. However, the original authority in Jaipur still proceeded to confirm the demand by denying the exemption. As such, the impugned order is unsustainable. The original authority should re-examine all the aspects and in consultation with the jurisdictional authority of the principal manufacturer, should verify the facts as claimed by the appellants regarding the export and deemed export of finished goods before taking a fresh decision - appeal allwoed by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.08.1995 read with Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The Revenue entertained a view that M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. are not eligible for exemption under Notification No.214/1986 as the final product manufactured by the principal manufacturer are exempt under Notification No.50/2003-CE. Accordingly, the benefit under Notification No.214/1986 was sought to be denied to M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt Ltd. Proceedings initiated against M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt Ltd and M/s Sterlite Technologies Limited concluded in the impugned orders. The original authority held that M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt Ltd are liable to pay Central Excise Duty of ₹ 1,57,05,942/- (January, 2009 to Septe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, M/s Sterlite Technologies Ltd gave an undertaking under the said Notification on 18.07.2011 to the Dy Commissioner, Jaipur. As such, the finding of the original authority regarding violation of procedural requirement is incorrect. In any case, M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt Ltd cannot be denied benefit of Notification No.214/1986 even if it is assumed that M/s Sterlite Technologies Limited did not file declaration/ undertaking within time. Certain decided cases were relied upon in this regard. iv) The impugned order has gone beyond the SCN with reference to advance authorization. The said discussion is irrelevant to the dispute in hand. v) The clearances made by the principal manufacturer M/s Sterlite Technologies Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two main grounds. The first being that the manufacturer is availing area based exemption and as such for job worker, exemption under Notification No.214/1986 will not apply; secondly, M/s Sterlite Technologies Limited failed to follow the procedure in terms of the said Notification No.214/1986. In this connection, we note that the audit officers pointed out the dispute regarding eligibility of exemption under Notification No.214/1986 for the processes undertaken by M/s Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt Ltd. A reference was made to the Jurisdictional Commissioner (Commissioner LTU Bombay) of principal manufacturer. The jurisdictional Commissionerate gave a detailed reply to Commissioner, Jaipur. The same is re-produced below: In this re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spools/bobbins and then loaded on the standing machine with the Steel wire at center spools (based on the number of strands in a particular Conductor); and - The final product i.e. Conductor is packed in Wooden or Steel drums based on the customers requirement for dispatch. On going through the process conducted by the job workers i.e. wire drawn from high carbon rods and galvinizing with zinc thereafter is also a substantial activity amounting to 10% of the value addition and not a peripheral activity as illustrated in para 4 of exemption Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and CBES Circular No.863/1/2008-CX darted 18.01.2008 followed by clarificatory Circular No.908/28/2009-CE dated 23.12.2009. Also since the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence was submitted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner along with his letter. It is surprising that one central excise authority will question the bonafideness and legal correctness of a letter issued by another Commissioner. In case of difference of opinion or doubt, the matter should have been referred back to the Commissioner, LTU, Bombay for due consultation and to arrive at a final decision. Instead, we note that, the original authority went ahead and gave his own interpretation on all the legal issues and denied the exemption to the appellants and also imposed penalties. Admittedly, also, the original authority has in fact travelled beyond the scope of the SCN by discussing the aspects of advance licence etc. 10. The finished goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
